Kauai Photoblogging 4: Kauai's Okolehau Trail. I'd like to urge my fellow pundits to share some pics of their hometowns as well.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
The Wiccan And The County Board
Times-Dispatch, Thors-Day.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has filed a petition on behalf of Cynthia Simpson, a witch of the Wiccan faith, seeking to reverse a ruling that upheld Chesterfield County's decision to bar her from giving the invocation at Board of Supervisors meetings.
In 2002, Simpson, who calls herself a witch, asked to be placed on the list of religious leaders invited to deliver the invocation at county board meetings. She later received a letter from Chesterfield's county attorney that said leaders on the list are restricted to those within the Judeo-Christian faith."
Now my friend Hark is going to yell that this is just another case of the ACLU wasting time and money pursuing wild and wooly radical liberal ideology, but, being Wiccan myself, I have to stand with Amanda at Pandagon, writing on Freys-Day, on this one.
I think we're all sick to death of maintaining the polite fiction that the theocrats just want a generic show of religion in the public space, and this is the sort of case that should expose the lie for what it is. Hopefully this case will get national attention so that theocrat leaders are forced into an unteneable position--either supporting the rights of a hated religion, which will piss off their followers, or coming out and admitting that they think their religion gives them special rights they want to deny the rest of us.
So what do you say? Is the ACLU correct to pursue this case further? Do you think Dobson et al will cry foul if the UCLA succeed? Will that expose them as intolerant bigots? Do you in fact think judeo-christianity shouldhave a privileged position in American life and if so, why?
Regards, Cernig
Saturns-Day.
UPDATE Colorado Luis has some more details on the case, including some contradictory satements made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the original judgement that upheld the County's ban on Simpson. Seems the judgement was issued by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, who is a strong contender to be a Bush pick for the Supremes if he gets a chance.
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has filed a petition on behalf of Cynthia Simpson, a witch of the Wiccan faith, seeking to reverse a ruling that upheld Chesterfield County's decision to bar her from giving the invocation at Board of Supervisors meetings.
In 2002, Simpson, who calls herself a witch, asked to be placed on the list of religious leaders invited to deliver the invocation at county board meetings. She later received a letter from Chesterfield's county attorney that said leaders on the list are restricted to those within the Judeo-Christian faith."
Now my friend Hark is going to yell that this is just another case of the ACLU wasting time and money pursuing wild and wooly radical liberal ideology, but, being Wiccan myself, I have to stand with Amanda at Pandagon, writing on Freys-Day, on this one.
I think we're all sick to death of maintaining the polite fiction that the theocrats just want a generic show of religion in the public space, and this is the sort of case that should expose the lie for what it is. Hopefully this case will get national attention so that theocrat leaders are forced into an unteneable position--either supporting the rights of a hated religion, which will piss off their followers, or coming out and admitting that they think their religion gives them special rights they want to deny the rest of us.
So what do you say? Is the ACLU correct to pursue this case further? Do you think Dobson et al will cry foul if the UCLA succeed? Will that expose them as intolerant bigots? Do you in fact think judeo-christianity shouldhave a privileged position in American life and if so, why?
Regards, Cernig
Saturns-Day.
UPDATE Colorado Luis has some more details on the case, including some contradictory satements made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the original judgement that upheld the County's ban on Simpson. Seems the judgement was issued by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, who is a strong contender to be a Bush pick for the Supremes if he gets a chance.
Bushspeak: North Korea.
From the transcript of the Presidential news conference.
Do you feel, as you're confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you've described for North Korea, Iran?
BUSH: I appreciate that question.
The person I asked that to -- the person I asked that to, at least, is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser.
I said, Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity. You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea.
We've traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We've brought some troops -- our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity.
What exactly does that mean, that the US has replaced troops in South Korea with more capacity? And is the US military over-stretched as many outwith the administration have been saying since at least 2003? Is the ability of US armed might to deter a possible enemy seriously eroded by heavy committments of manpower and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The US currently has around 37,000 troops in South Korea and was supposed to reduce that number by 12,500 or roughly one third by the end of this year. However, in 2003 the two countries agreed instead to a phased withdrawal that means only 8,000 of those troops will have left by the end of 2005, with the remaining 5,500 not completely gone until 2008. South Korea has increasingly wanted to manage it's own defence and has a stated objective of being totally able to do so by 2010. At that time it is increasingly likely that US troops will be withdrawn from the Peninsula entirely.
The "more capacity" that Bush mentioned refers to an increase of heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers based in the Pacific theatre, as well as units of artillery missiles in Korea itself. However, there is a serious shortfall in air and sealift capacity, with up to 90% of both committed to the Iraqi occupation and it's resupply. If general hostilities were to break out in Korea, then the most the US could do would be to assist the existing forces it has there with airstrikes - until the Iraq occupation is concluded it cannot effectively resupply or heavily reinforce it's Korean forces in event of war.
One 2003 study on the Bush administration's possible responses to North Korea's nuclear program noted:
[The] Pentagon estimates that the casualties of a three month war on the Korean Peninsula would be 50,000 US military casualties, 100,000 South Korean military casualties, untold North Korean casualties, and perhaps more than a million civilian casualties. We do no know how China, Japan, or Russia (or even South Korea, for that matter) will react to such a possibility. China still has a mutual defense treaty with North Korea, after all. Moreover, we cannot eliminate the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons on both sides, or of missile attack on Japan. For these reasons, threatening war on the Korean peninsula, in my opinion, shows reckless disregard for the lives of US troops and those of important US allies.
The possibility of a North Korean nuclear strike on Tokyo or even the US itself has become more real than previously thought, with the admission on Thursday by the Director of Defense Intelligence (DIA) Agency Admiral Lowell Jacoby that "they have the capability" to arm a long range missile with a nuclear device. This revalation has been something the US has been telling it's allies in secret briefings since 2003, but never admitting to the US media and public until now. Now the DIA is trying to pass it's Director's admission of as a slip of the tongue, but what he told Senators was quite clear.
Bush and his administration are walking a tightrope. On the one hand they must downplay the very real danger enough that the American people do not demand direct action that has no chance of happening successfully - certainly not by the almost bloodless standards of the two invasions of Iraq. On the other they must keep the sense of threat alive enough that America will continue to back their diplomatic measures and provide money for programs such as the ballistic missile shield which Bush placed such huge reliance on in his press conference.
I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld, and I have worked with Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and running.
One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up: Perhaps Kim Jong Il has got the capacity to launch a weapon; wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down?
And so, we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him
The trouble is, the nuclear threat is real now - the missile defence system is still some years away from being reality. Not only have most of the tests of key parts of the system been such utter failures that that "the command that is responsible for drawing up the ground-based system’s operating plans and procedures doesn’t yet know exactly what the missile shield can do," the military officials responsible for operating the system are far from clear about who will do what, when and how.
In other words, Bush's "comprehensive strategy" is empty of real options other than to keep US citizen's as much in the dark as possible while hoping diplomacy works.
It's hardly surprising then that promises of "all options" being all the table rang hollow during his press conference. Contrast:
QUESTION: I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about North Korea. He asked you how long you were prepared to let the multiparty talks proceed in the face of what might be a gathering threat of North Korea. And you said, How long -- I'm paraphrasing -- How long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus among ourselves.
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. nor take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other partners in the process?
BUSH: No, I didn't speak about military -- I was speaking about diplomatically.
with this, a few sentences later:
Are you going to -- you know, when are you going to -- when will there be consequences? And what we want to do is to work with our allies on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach, to the consequences of Kim Jong Il.
I mean, it seems counterproductive to have five of us working together and then all of a sudden one of us say, Well, we're not going to work together.
Since it is obvious that military action could only follow after the US said "Well, we're not going to work together", it also seems obvious that US threats of military action are as empty as the "comprehensive strategy" Bush calims to have.
Yet the only people he is trying to hoodwink are common Americans. You can be sure that other nation's militaries, including North Korea's, are as aware of the realities as the Pentagon is.
Do you feel, as you're confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you've described for North Korea, Iran?
BUSH: I appreciate that question.
The person I asked that to -- the person I asked that to, at least, is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser.
I said, Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity. You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea.
We've traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We've brought some troops -- our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity.
What exactly does that mean, that the US has replaced troops in South Korea with more capacity? And is the US military over-stretched as many outwith the administration have been saying since at least 2003? Is the ability of US armed might to deter a possible enemy seriously eroded by heavy committments of manpower and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The US currently has around 37,000 troops in South Korea and was supposed to reduce that number by 12,500 or roughly one third by the end of this year. However, in 2003 the two countries agreed instead to a phased withdrawal that means only 8,000 of those troops will have left by the end of 2005, with the remaining 5,500 not completely gone until 2008. South Korea has increasingly wanted to manage it's own defence and has a stated objective of being totally able to do so by 2010. At that time it is increasingly likely that US troops will be withdrawn from the Peninsula entirely.
The "more capacity" that Bush mentioned refers to an increase of heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers based in the Pacific theatre, as well as units of artillery missiles in Korea itself. However, there is a serious shortfall in air and sealift capacity, with up to 90% of both committed to the Iraqi occupation and it's resupply. If general hostilities were to break out in Korea, then the most the US could do would be to assist the existing forces it has there with airstrikes - until the Iraq occupation is concluded it cannot effectively resupply or heavily reinforce it's Korean forces in event of war.
One 2003 study on the Bush administration's possible responses to North Korea's nuclear program noted:
[The] Pentagon estimates that the casualties of a three month war on the Korean Peninsula would be 50,000 US military casualties, 100,000 South Korean military casualties, untold North Korean casualties, and perhaps more than a million civilian casualties. We do no know how China, Japan, or Russia (or even South Korea, for that matter) will react to such a possibility. China still has a mutual defense treaty with North Korea, after all. Moreover, we cannot eliminate the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons on both sides, or of missile attack on Japan. For these reasons, threatening war on the Korean peninsula, in my opinion, shows reckless disregard for the lives of US troops and those of important US allies.
The possibility of a North Korean nuclear strike on Tokyo or even the US itself has become more real than previously thought, with the admission on Thursday by the Director of Defense Intelligence (DIA) Agency Admiral Lowell Jacoby that "they have the capability" to arm a long range missile with a nuclear device. This revalation has been something the US has been telling it's allies in secret briefings since 2003, but never admitting to the US media and public until now. Now the DIA is trying to pass it's Director's admission of as a slip of the tongue, but what he told Senators was quite clear.
Bush and his administration are walking a tightrope. On the one hand they must downplay the very real danger enough that the American people do not demand direct action that has no chance of happening successfully - certainly not by the almost bloodless standards of the two invasions of Iraq. On the other they must keep the sense of threat alive enough that America will continue to back their diplomatic measures and provide money for programs such as the ballistic missile shield which Bush placed such huge reliance on in his press conference.
I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld, and I have worked with Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and running.
One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up: Perhaps Kim Jong Il has got the capacity to launch a weapon; wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down?
And so, we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him
The trouble is, the nuclear threat is real now - the missile defence system is still some years away from being reality. Not only have most of the tests of key parts of the system been such utter failures that that "the command that is responsible for drawing up the ground-based system’s operating plans and procedures doesn’t yet know exactly what the missile shield can do," the military officials responsible for operating the system are far from clear about who will do what, when and how.
In other words, Bush's "comprehensive strategy" is empty of real options other than to keep US citizen's as much in the dark as possible while hoping diplomacy works.
It's hardly surprising then that promises of "all options" being all the table rang hollow during his press conference. Contrast:
QUESTION: I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about North Korea. He asked you how long you were prepared to let the multiparty talks proceed in the face of what might be a gathering threat of North Korea. And you said, How long -- I'm paraphrasing -- How long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus among ourselves.
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. nor take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other partners in the process?
BUSH: No, I didn't speak about military -- I was speaking about diplomatically.
with this, a few sentences later:
Are you going to -- you know, when are you going to -- when will there be consequences? And what we want to do is to work with our allies on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach, to the consequences of Kim Jong Il.
I mean, it seems counterproductive to have five of us working together and then all of a sudden one of us say, Well, we're not going to work together.
Since it is obvious that military action could only follow after the US said "Well, we're not going to work together", it also seems obvious that US threats of military action are as empty as the "comprehensive strategy" Bush calims to have.
Yet the only people he is trying to hoodwink are common Americans. You can be sure that other nation's militaries, including North Korea's, are as aware of the realities as the Pentagon is.
Friday, April 29, 2005
This Is Radio Clash
This week's challenge from the Unpaid Punditry Corps was one of those "where do I start" things.
What overtly political music inspires you?
Now, I first became aware of politics when Thatcher came to power in the UK. It didn't take me long to figure out that, whatever else I was, I was against her brand of conservatism - one which has now infected the US.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
(John Kenneth Galbraith)
So the soundtrack to my politics is still made up mostly of the hot, fierce protest songs of the late 70's and early 80's, with a sprinkling of later works. As the Republican assault on unselfish government continues, some of those old songs are still inspiring, still giving me the urge to protest. And yes, there will be a lot of songs by The Clash in this list.
The Clash - "This Is Radio Clash". From that first crazy laugh to the driving drumbeat, it's a wake up call.
Hazel O'Connor - "Big Brother". Pure pop-punk but still effective, especially in the movie version.
They'll tear out your heart, throw it neatly in a cart
'Cause that's what they do, with scum like me and you
And you feel as if you died. Whilst you're standing on the line
And you wonder all the time why can't you cry?
But the people in control don't care for you
Dear, you're just a robot with a job to do
And when your used, exhausted, they'll be rid of you
As soon as look at you - go to the back of the queue!
The Clash - "The Magnificent Seven".
So get back to work an' sweat some more
The sun will sink an' we'll get out the door
It's no good for man to work in cages
Hits the town, he drinks his wages
You're frettin', you're sweatin'
But did you notice you ain't gettin'?
Don't you ever stop long enough to start?
To take your car outta that gear.
Hazel O'Connor - "Monsters in Disguise". Gitmo Bay, Abu Graib, Florida gun laws - plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose.
Today you went out to inspect your servants
I saw you wave and rave from my T.V.
You promised soon that they would have a paper
Give them the right to kill quite legally
So you hide in your palace of bureaucracy
I hope that you never contaminate me.
The Clash - "Clampdown". A prophetic look at how conservatives only ever change scapegoat - from jew to muslim to "liberal" and employ echo-chamber droves of ideological parrots to push their agenda into the mainstream.
What are we gonna do now?
Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech
To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men
To be young believers.
The Clash - "London Calling". London was the powerhouse of the punk movement, the place where Thatcher most often used the police as her personal brownshirt battalions to violently break up protest, and if y'all had only listened you wouldn't have Bush wrecking your nation.
Hawkwind - "Days of The Underground".
what ever happened
to those chromium heroes
are there none of them
still left around
since the days
of the underground?
Well, what did happen? Where are the protest singers now? Where is the mass movement of anger? Too many have been made over, even the rap stars are more interested in bling-bling than in the message - working for the clampdown.
What overtly political music inspires you?
Now, I first became aware of politics when Thatcher came to power in the UK. It didn't take me long to figure out that, whatever else I was, I was against her brand of conservatism - one which has now infected the US.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
(John Kenneth Galbraith)
So the soundtrack to my politics is still made up mostly of the hot, fierce protest songs of the late 70's and early 80's, with a sprinkling of later works. As the Republican assault on unselfish government continues, some of those old songs are still inspiring, still giving me the urge to protest. And yes, there will be a lot of songs by The Clash in this list.
They'll tear out your heart, throw it neatly in a cart
'Cause that's what they do, with scum like me and you
And you feel as if you died. Whilst you're standing on the line
And you wonder all the time why can't you cry?
But the people in control don't care for you
Dear, you're just a robot with a job to do
And when your used, exhausted, they'll be rid of you
As soon as look at you - go to the back of the queue!
So get back to work an' sweat some more
The sun will sink an' we'll get out the door
It's no good for man to work in cages
Hits the town, he drinks his wages
You're frettin', you're sweatin'
But did you notice you ain't gettin'?
Don't you ever stop long enough to start?
To take your car outta that gear.
Today you went out to inspect your servants
I saw you wave and rave from my T.V.
You promised soon that they would have a paper
Give them the right to kill quite legally
So you hide in your palace of bureaucracy
I hope that you never contaminate me.
What are we gonna do now?
Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech
To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men
To be young believers.
what ever happened
to those chromium heroes
are there none of them
still left around
since the days
of the underground?
Well, what did happen? Where are the protest singers now? Where is the mass movement of anger? Too many have been made over, even the rap stars are more interested in bling-bling than in the message - working for the clampdown.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Peak Oil - Presidential Panic?
President Bush is to address the nation tonight, in his first live press conference in over a year. While he will focus mostly on his proposed Social Security plans, part of the session will be devoted to talking about skyrocketing gas prices. Bush is expected to push Congress to pass his long-stalled energy plan. Soaring oil and gasoline prices are beginning to take a toll on U.S. economic growth and on Bush's approval ratings and recently Bush convinced Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to increase that country's oil production. Saudi leaders had little to offer Bush beyond that, saying the high prices are the result of a lack of adequate refining capacity in the United States and elsewhere.
Of course, the oil companies are delighted by current high prices, with every major oil company recording record profits right now. "It goes without saying that the industry is enjoying an unprecedented level of high oil prices and strong business fundamentals in general," said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co."Everyone is taking advantage of it before the party ends. It doesn't look like it will end anytime soon."
However, that is not the end of the story.
Yesterday, in a speech to a Small Business Administration conference in Washington, Bush proposed a series of energy initiatives, including more oil refineries and nuclear plants, to combat what is seen as the problem of US dependence on overseas oil. The five point proposal he outlined comprised:
Expanding his existing tax credit proposal, which currently applies to hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, to include those using new clean diesel technology.
A call to Congress to grant federal authority (via the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) over the location of new liquefied natural gas terminals in an effort to increase the supply of natural gas and reduce prices.
Reduce uncertainty in the licensing process of nuclear power plants. The president proposed federally provided "risk insurance" to mitigate the cost of possible delays in the licensing of new reactors but no-one is as yet prepared to say how much that insurance could cost
A plan to encourage building oil refineries on former military sites. Administration officials said Bush will ask federal agencies to work with states and local communities to try to identify ways for refinery expansion.
Expanded international cooperation in cleaner and more efficient energy technologies.
It's like the president suddenly woke up to the approaching crisis of "peak oil" which every industry analyst with the gumption to give an estimate says is coming within the next year to ten. One wonders how this remarkable task was done. Maybe a picture book? "See Spot...See Spot run...See Spot run out of oil."
Peak Oil is suddenly being talked about a lot, and is no longer purely the realm of the tinfoil hat brigade (although they are still around) but instead is very mainstream. Colin Campbell was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries. Last week he told a group of Swiss financiers:
Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years. The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways. About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year.
After "peak oil", global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies. As one US analyst said this week: "Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye."
So it's just as well that Bush has been woken to the realities of the coming crisis. It remains to be seen how successful his proposals will be. Extending tax credits to include clean deisel engines is a good idea but is only a stop-gap. Environmentalists may well find themselves in common cause with small-government libertarians in opposing a huge federally funded insurance scheme to build nuclear plants. States will no doubt resist handing over the power to locate natural gas refineries. International co-operation on new technologies would be more likely to find answers if Bush hadn't gutted government spending on scientific research, particularly in renewable energy, before he awoke from his dream of endless oil.
Oh and the military bases? His friends in the oil industry are already talking down the idea, saying that military sites may be unacceptable due to chemical contamination or be too far inland to be cost effective.
Who would wish to be the sitting President and leader of America, beholden to oil money for his chair, at the time that peak oil hits? With the big oil people able to make ever more money as the crisis takes a grip but the common people and the country suffering? I bet Bush is feeling the pressure tonight.
Of course, the oil companies are delighted by current high prices, with every major oil company recording record profits right now. "It goes without saying that the industry is enjoying an unprecedented level of high oil prices and strong business fundamentals in general," said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co."Everyone is taking advantage of it before the party ends. It doesn't look like it will end anytime soon."
However, that is not the end of the story.
Yesterday, in a speech to a Small Business Administration conference in Washington, Bush proposed a series of energy initiatives, including more oil refineries and nuclear plants, to combat what is seen as the problem of US dependence on overseas oil. The five point proposal he outlined comprised:
It's like the president suddenly woke up to the approaching crisis of "peak oil" which every industry analyst with the gumption to give an estimate says is coming within the next year to ten. One wonders how this remarkable task was done. Maybe a picture book? "See Spot...See Spot run...See Spot run out of oil."
Peak Oil is suddenly being talked about a lot, and is no longer purely the realm of the tinfoil hat brigade (although they are still around) but instead is very mainstream. Colin Campbell was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries. Last week he told a group of Swiss financiers:
Don't worry about oil running out; it won't for very many years. The issue is the long downward slope that opens on the other side of peak production. Oil and gas dominate our lives, and their decline will change the world in radical and unpredictable ways. About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year.
After "peak oil", global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies. As one US analyst said this week: "Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye."
So it's just as well that Bush has been woken to the realities of the coming crisis. It remains to be seen how successful his proposals will be. Extending tax credits to include clean deisel engines is a good idea but is only a stop-gap. Environmentalists may well find themselves in common cause with small-government libertarians in opposing a huge federally funded insurance scheme to build nuclear plants. States will no doubt resist handing over the power to locate natural gas refineries. International co-operation on new technologies would be more likely to find answers if Bush hadn't gutted government spending on scientific research, particularly in renewable energy, before he awoke from his dream of endless oil.
Oh and the military bases? His friends in the oil industry are already talking down the idea, saying that military sites may be unacceptable due to chemical contamination or be too far inland to be cost effective.
Who would wish to be the sitting President and leader of America, beholden to oil money for his chair, at the time that peak oil hits? With the big oil people able to make ever more money as the crisis takes a grip but the common people and the country suffering? I bet Bush is feeling the pressure tonight.
Insta-Hoglets Big News Roundup
There's some really big news out there, all of which will be done to death by every blogger in town - so I am not going to bother.
The Iraqi Interim National Assembly finally agreed on a partial Cabinet list today, after much wrangling and disputation over ethnic mix. However, the two key posts of Defense and Oil Ministers are still undecided so the whole thing is as yet a bit useless. The list also doesn't have a fair representation of Sunnis because the Shiites made such a stink about Sunni candidates' Ba'athist ties. That means the chance of a general civil war just went up a little too.
"The president's supporters say his recent 60-day campaign has succeeded in highlighting the importance of fixing Social Security. But polls make clear Bush's pitch on private stock and bond accounts has fallen flat with a public wary of the stock market wildcard." So says Reuters, but everyone knows they are biased liberal traitors. Personally, I liked the view of the cartoonist from the Houston Chronicle, who captioned his effort with
I don't want a personal account - I want a percentage of Congress' take from the lobbyists
Heh. If his plans have gone down so well as his supporters claim, why is he holding his first primetime news conference in over a year to tout them tonight?
OK, Reuters may be a bit biased - here is how they ran the first paragraph on this story:
U.S. Senate and House Republicans on Thursday reached a deal on a $2.6 trillion budget plan for next year that would wring savings from some health care programs for the poor while leaving room for additional tax cuts, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said.
Somehow I doubt he was quite so blatant, even if it is true.
Then there's a couple of stories that won't get quite as much attention, but should.
A new report says that even more Texans have no health insurance than previously thought. Trouble is, Texas was already the league leader for uninsured citizens. Most experts agree that "the large number of low-wage workers is the most powerful factor driving the high numbers of uninsured people in Texas and other southern and southwestern states".
My wife works as a waitress in a popular national chain restaurant. She gets $2.13 an hour, way below minimum wage. She is supposed to be able to make it up in tips and usually does, but as the economy of Texas worsens that is getting more difficult every day. No-one is interested in talking about what happens to workers like her when people can't afford to tip as well as they used to. Want to bet the restaurant chain will say "OK, we will make up the shortfall to minimum wage"? I didn't think so.
Lastly, and by no means leastly, a former translator at Gitmo Bay has come forward to say that fake "nice" interrogations were staged for visiting VIP's. Former Army Sergeant Erik Saar told CBS television show 60 Minutes that he believes "only a few dozen" of the 600 detainees at the camp were terrorists and that little information was obtained from them.
When will the people who voted for Bush wake up to the smoke and mirrors show that is perpetrating atrocities in their names?
I don't want a personal account - I want a percentage of Congress' take from the lobbyists
Heh. If his plans have gone down so well as his supporters claim, why is he holding his first primetime news conference in over a year to tout them tonight?
U.S. Senate and House Republicans on Thursday reached a deal on a $2.6 trillion budget plan for next year that would wring savings from some health care programs for the poor while leaving room for additional tax cuts, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said.
Somehow I doubt he was quite so blatant, even if it is true.
Then there's a couple of stories that won't get quite as much attention, but should.
My wife works as a waitress in a popular national chain restaurant. She gets $2.13 an hour, way below minimum wage. She is supposed to be able to make it up in tips and usually does, but as the economy of Texas worsens that is getting more difficult every day. No-one is interested in talking about what happens to workers like her when people can't afford to tip as well as they used to. Want to bet the restaurant chain will say "OK, we will make up the shortfall to minimum wage"? I didn't think so.
When will the people who voted for Bush wake up to the smoke and mirrors show that is perpetrating atrocities in their names?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
OpTruth Lists Senators Who Hate The Troops
I don't ever want to hear another word from anyone about the GOP being the party that supports America's sons and daughters in uniform while they are out there bleeding and dying for their country! It's a sham, a lie, a spin on a tale of treachery and self interest. OpTruth, the organisation for veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, has the list of Senators who voted "Yay" and "Nay" on an amendment to change the Emergency Supplemental to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees. I am going to reproduce it for you here.
YEAs ---61
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---39
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Notice a pattern there? 38 of the 39 who didn't want to spend money on providing better protection for troops in harm's way were Republican
I hope every single thankless, coniving, disgustingly partisan and hopelessly morally bankrupt one of them has soldiers in uniform booing them at every public appearance they make from now till the (not soon enough) end of their careers. Especially people like Frist, who hopes to run for President and be Commander in Chief! He does not deserve to run, let alone ever be in the position of asking for the loyalty of those who serve the US in uniform.
This morning, Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder of Operation Truth, spoke before the House Democratic Caucus in Washington, D.C. You can and should read his speech here. For those too lazy to click the link (shame on you) I will give you a taster.
I came here today to try to create some urgency in this town. I am here to help wake you up. And I am also here to ask you to stand next to us in our next fight. The mental toll that this war has had on our newest generation of Veterans is severe--and growing. PTSD could very well be my generation's Agent Orange Syndrome.
I have spent time with hundreds of vets since I returned from Iraq last year. We disagree on many issues surrounding the war. PTSD is not one of those issues. We are united in our understanding of the magnitude of the problem. The recent NEJM Study found that roughly 1 in 6 of us will return from Iraq with PTSD. Honestly, those numbers are old and very conservative...
...According to the Pentagon, over 1 million troops have been through the theater of operations in the Middle East since 9/11. Of all the troops ever sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, one-third have gone more than once. In the regular Army, 63 percent of the soldiers have been to war at least one time, and almost 40 percent of those soldiers have gone back. The highest rate of first-time deployments belongs to the Marine Corps Reserve: Almost 90 percent have fought.
They have served our country well. It is time to properly honor that service.
Many people around the country, and especially in this town, talk about supporting the troops. Well, talk it is cheap. The mental toll of this war is wounding and killing America's sons and daughters every single day. Our troops and veterans are tired of partisan politics. We are tired of bickering. We are tired of talk. We need some action.
You in this room have a tremendous opportunity to lead this country in a new direction. You can stand next to us, and show some real leadership and make veterans issues a priority for the first time in generations.
On this issue, Republican politicians have shown their true colours time and time again. Read my posts The GOP Hates Our Troops and The GOP Still Hates The Troops for more details on their immoral backstabbing of those who die for a war the Republicans got them into - a war that had nothing to do with the War on Terror.
Here's a challenge for those on the Right who do wish to offer support to their soldiers - hand back your party registrations in protest at this iniquity! You know you should.
YEAs ---61
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---39
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Notice a pattern there? 38 of the 39 who didn't want to spend money on providing better protection for troops in harm's way were Republican
I hope every single thankless, coniving, disgustingly partisan and hopelessly morally bankrupt one of them has soldiers in uniform booing them at every public appearance they make from now till the (not soon enough) end of their careers. Especially people like Frist, who hopes to run for President and be Commander in Chief! He does not deserve to run, let alone ever be in the position of asking for the loyalty of those who serve the US in uniform.
This morning, Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder of Operation Truth, spoke before the House Democratic Caucus in Washington, D.C. You can and should read his speech here. For those too lazy to click the link (shame on you) I will give you a taster.
I came here today to try to create some urgency in this town. I am here to help wake you up. And I am also here to ask you to stand next to us in our next fight. The mental toll that this war has had on our newest generation of Veterans is severe--and growing. PTSD could very well be my generation's Agent Orange Syndrome.
I have spent time with hundreds of vets since I returned from Iraq last year. We disagree on many issues surrounding the war. PTSD is not one of those issues. We are united in our understanding of the magnitude of the problem. The recent NEJM Study found that roughly 1 in 6 of us will return from Iraq with PTSD. Honestly, those numbers are old and very conservative...
...According to the Pentagon, over 1 million troops have been through the theater of operations in the Middle East since 9/11. Of all the troops ever sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, one-third have gone more than once. In the regular Army, 63 percent of the soldiers have been to war at least one time, and almost 40 percent of those soldiers have gone back. The highest rate of first-time deployments belongs to the Marine Corps Reserve: Almost 90 percent have fought.
They have served our country well. It is time to properly honor that service.
Many people around the country, and especially in this town, talk about supporting the troops. Well, talk it is cheap. The mental toll of this war is wounding and killing America's sons and daughters every single day. Our troops and veterans are tired of partisan politics. We are tired of bickering. We are tired of talk. We need some action.
You in this room have a tremendous opportunity to lead this country in a new direction. You can stand next to us, and show some real leadership and make veterans issues a priority for the first time in generations.
On this issue, Republican politicians have shown their true colours time and time again. Read my posts The GOP Hates Our Troops and The GOP Still Hates The Troops for more details on their immoral backstabbing of those who die for a war the Republicans got them into - a war that had nothing to do with the War on Terror.
Here's a challenge for those on the Right who do wish to offer support to their soldiers - hand back your party registrations in protest at this iniquity! You know you should.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Terrorism Increases So Bury The Report
I don't much go for highly emotive rants but if ever an issue deserved it, it is this - the annual National Counterterrorism Center report was about to say that global terrorism was at an all time high in 2004, so the Bush administration killed it.
Luckily, I dont have to write the rant - Mark Morford at SF Gate already did a crackling job:
Oh my God I feel so much safer. Don't you?
I mean, don't you feel so much more secure in your all-American gun-totin' oil-happy lifestyle now that we have wasted upward of $300 billion worth of your child's future education budget, along with 1,600 disposable young American lives and over 20,000 innocent Iraqi lives and about 10,000 severed American limbs and untold wads of our spiritual and moral currency, all to protect America from terrorism that is, by every account, only getting worse? Nastier? More nebulous? More anti-American?
...
The obliteration of the National Counterterrorism Center report merely goes to prove what so many of us already know -- that BushCo's brutish and borderline traitorous actions since they leveraged 9/11 to blatantly screw the nation have done exactly nothing to stem the tide of terrorism -- and, in fact, have, by most every measure, apparently increased the threat of terrorism. In other words, the world is a more dangerous place because of George W. Bush. Is that clear enough?
If justifiable rant is an art form then this one is a masterpiece. Read it.
UPDATE 26th April
Just to underscore the point that the White House have been spinning stories like tops, General Richard Myers who is currently chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff has told the BBC that Iraqi insurgents have lost none of their capacity to stage attacks:
I think their capacity stays about the same. And where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago.
There are currently 50 to 60 insurgent attacks a day, the same level as one year ago.
Isn't it amazing how many administration appointees go back on the spin they were given to spout as soon as they know their days are numbered?
Luckily, I dont have to write the rant - Mark Morford at SF Gate already did a crackling job:
Oh my God I feel so much safer. Don't you?
I mean, don't you feel so much more secure in your all-American gun-totin' oil-happy lifestyle now that we have wasted upward of $300 billion worth of your child's future education budget, along with 1,600 disposable young American lives and over 20,000 innocent Iraqi lives and about 10,000 severed American limbs and untold wads of our spiritual and moral currency, all to protect America from terrorism that is, by every account, only getting worse? Nastier? More nebulous? More anti-American?
...
The obliteration of the National Counterterrorism Center report merely goes to prove what so many of us already know -- that BushCo's brutish and borderline traitorous actions since they leveraged 9/11 to blatantly screw the nation have done exactly nothing to stem the tide of terrorism -- and, in fact, have, by most every measure, apparently increased the threat of terrorism. In other words, the world is a more dangerous place because of George W. Bush. Is that clear enough?
If justifiable rant is an art form then this one is a masterpiece. Read it.
UPDATE 26th April
Just to underscore the point that the White House have been spinning stories like tops, General Richard Myers who is currently chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff has told the BBC that Iraqi insurgents have lost none of their capacity to stage attacks:
I think their capacity stays about the same. And where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago.
There are currently 50 to 60 insurgent attacks a day, the same level as one year ago.
Isn't it amazing how many administration appointees go back on the spin they were given to spout as soon as they know their days are numbered?
Peak Oil and Peak Profits
Matthew Simmons, an adviser to President George Bush and chairman of the Wall Street energy investment company Simmons, has told a conference of oil industry analysts, government officials and academics that Middle Eastern countries may have far less than officially stated and that oil prices could double to more than $100 a barrel within three years, triggering economic collapse.
Speaking in Edinburgh, Simmons called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves, saying:
There is a big chance that Saudi Arabia actually peaked production in 1981. We have no reliable data. Our data collection system for oil is rubbish. I suspect that if we had, we would find that we are over-producing in most of our major fields and that we should be throttling back. We may have passed that point.
Demand is pulling away from supply...and we have to ask whether we have the resources that we think we do. It could be catastrophic if we do not anticipate when peak oil comes.
Several other industry insiders agree with him. Colin Campbell, former vice-president of Fina and chief geologist of the oil giant Amoco says:
The real issue is not the actual date of peak production - which I believe is next year - but what happens during the decline of production. I think we are in for an extended period of restricted economic activity. I do not think that we will adjust very smoothly.
While Chris Skrebowski, of the Energy Institute in London, points to Exxon's estimate that the world is using 5% of it's total reserves every year and thinks:
Norway, Venezuela, the UK and Indonesia and many others are all declining production. I expect Denmark, Malaysia, China, Mexico and Brunei to peak within three years...I estimate that we have, at best, 32 months before [the crisis] hits.
The big oil companies don't care right now, of course. They are riding high on huge profits from the higher cost of crude oil. Exxon had record profits in the last year and BP has just announced that the first three months of the year, the UK's biggest listed company made $5.49bn (£2.87bn). The figure, the equivalent to earnings of £1.3m an hour, comes two months after BP announced a record annual profit of £8.7bn.
So, we can add the massive economic collapse following peak oil to the trade deficit, the budget deficit, China and others thinking about dumping the weak dollar, the bursting of the housing bubble, tax cuts for the rich which only make the country poorer, the inevitable drop in stocks which has to come from all this and Bush's borrowing policies - which are akin to standing outside your house with a big wad of cash shouting about how much money you have while behind you the house is empty for you've sold the furniture at bargain rates to raise the cash. All of this to hit by 2008 - 2010.
At which point Bush and his appointed cronies will be sunning themselves in some tax haven and laughing all the way to the offshore bank - no matter which party gets to inherit the mess.
Speaking in Edinburgh, Simmons called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves, saying:
There is a big chance that Saudi Arabia actually peaked production in 1981. We have no reliable data. Our data collection system for oil is rubbish. I suspect that if we had, we would find that we are over-producing in most of our major fields and that we should be throttling back. We may have passed that point.
Demand is pulling away from supply...and we have to ask whether we have the resources that we think we do. It could be catastrophic if we do not anticipate when peak oil comes.
Several other industry insiders agree with him. Colin Campbell, former vice-president of Fina and chief geologist of the oil giant Amoco says:
The real issue is not the actual date of peak production - which I believe is next year - but what happens during the decline of production. I think we are in for an extended period of restricted economic activity. I do not think that we will adjust very smoothly.
While Chris Skrebowski, of the Energy Institute in London, points to Exxon's estimate that the world is using 5% of it's total reserves every year and thinks:
Norway, Venezuela, the UK and Indonesia and many others are all declining production. I expect Denmark, Malaysia, China, Mexico and Brunei to peak within three years...I estimate that we have, at best, 32 months before [the crisis] hits.
The big oil companies don't care right now, of course. They are riding high on huge profits from the higher cost of crude oil. Exxon had record profits in the last year and BP has just announced that the first three months of the year, the UK's biggest listed company made $5.49bn (£2.87bn). The figure, the equivalent to earnings of £1.3m an hour, comes two months after BP announced a record annual profit of £8.7bn.
So, we can add the massive economic collapse following peak oil to the trade deficit, the budget deficit, China and others thinking about dumping the weak dollar, the bursting of the housing bubble, tax cuts for the rich which only make the country poorer, the inevitable drop in stocks which has to come from all this and Bush's borrowing policies - which are akin to standing outside your house with a big wad of cash shouting about how much money you have while behind you the house is empty for you've sold the furniture at bargain rates to raise the cash. All of this to hit by 2008 - 2010.
At which point Bush and his appointed cronies will be sunning themselves in some tax haven and laughing all the way to the offshore bank - no matter which party gets to inherit the mess.
Report on Death of Italian Agent To Clear Troops
From The Independent comes a report that the US military investigation into the death of an Italian intelligence officer shot in Baghdad is expected to conclude that the American soldiers generally followed instructions as they fired on the agent's approaching car. A US military officail, speaking anonymously, has told reporters that the probe will likely raise questions about US rules of engagement at checkpoints, however.
Meanwhile, the Italian press is full of as yet unconfirmed rumours that the two Italian members of the probe team, a diplomat and military official, will refuse to sign of on the findings citing deep disagreement with the report's conclusions.
UPDATE 30thApril
A CBS report on Thursday said that a US spy satellite caught the whole thing and that:
the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.
Italian members of the panel are arguing among other things that the checkpoint was not properly marked and therefore the US soldiers weren't justified in shooting so quickly. Cartainly three seconds and about 400 feet away seems to be awfully late to spot a speeding car if a checkpoint was well sited. It's also not a long time to do all the "hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots" that the Pentagon says was done.
It's a pity the Pentagon hasn't released the camera footage, so we and CBS have to rely on the Pentagon's version. My capacity to trust what anyone working under Rummie has to say, just coz they say it, has been bigtime undermined of late, since all the proof of torture that documents released by the ACLU lawsuit show came out.
Personally, I think both sides in the incident fouled up in some part and neither want to admit it.
Meanwhile, the Italian press is full of as yet unconfirmed rumours that the two Italian members of the probe team, a diplomat and military official, will refuse to sign of on the findings citing deep disagreement with the report's conclusions.
UPDATE 30thApril
A CBS report on Thursday said that a US spy satellite caught the whole thing and that:
the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.
Italian members of the panel are arguing among other things that the checkpoint was not properly marked and therefore the US soldiers weren't justified in shooting so quickly. Cartainly three seconds and about 400 feet away seems to be awfully late to spot a speeding car if a checkpoint was well sited. It's also not a long time to do all the "hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots" that the Pentagon says was done.
It's a pity the Pentagon hasn't released the camera footage, so we and CBS have to rely on the Pentagon's version. My capacity to trust what anyone working under Rummie has to say, just coz they say it, has been bigtime undermined of late, since all the proof of torture that documents released by the ACLU lawsuit show came out.
Personally, I think both sides in the incident fouled up in some part and neither want to admit it.
Churchill on UN
I've been thinking about this post from The Agonist for a few days, and decided it would be nice to share it with everybody. Winston Churchill is a folk hero of the Right both in the UK and the US, so at this time when Bully Bolton is being pressed on the world as US ambassador to the UN, it's interesting to look at what old Winnie had to say about the UN way back in 1946.
We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars - though not, alas, in the interval between them - I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
The US has worked to reduce Churchill's vision to that "cockpit in a Tower of Babel" and Bolton is being put forward to finish the job, robbing the UN of any teeth at all. Churchill would have preferred that the UN had it's own armed forces to call upon - fat chance of the Empire of the United States ever allowing that!
The author of the Agonist piece, Stirling Newbury, has written a powerful indictment of the sorry state the UN has fallen to. Yes it needs drastic reform - but that reform should be to reinvigorate and re-enfranchise it, not make it a toothless paper tiger which can only complain as powerful states ride roughshod over it's founding principles and the nations of their neighbours. Newbury sums it up well:
We should, in these difficult times, be grateful for any support the UN might have, but we should not accept a mischaracterization of the role of international organizations, nor a misreading of the history and character of the United Nations as an organization where its member states, by standing united against threats to peace, law and order, and the continued increase in global prosperity, join to act in concert. Because the greatest threat to sovereignty of peoples is not internationalism, but economic and political turmoil, and the horrors that come in the wake of failed states and lawless actions of lawless dictators.
In Churchill's memory, we should not allow the efforts of the current US administration to kill off the UN to continue unchecked.
We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars - though not, alas, in the interval between them - I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
The US has worked to reduce Churchill's vision to that "cockpit in a Tower of Babel" and Bolton is being put forward to finish the job, robbing the UN of any teeth at all. Churchill would have preferred that the UN had it's own armed forces to call upon - fat chance of the Empire of the United States ever allowing that!
The author of the Agonist piece, Stirling Newbury, has written a powerful indictment of the sorry state the UN has fallen to. Yes it needs drastic reform - but that reform should be to reinvigorate and re-enfranchise it, not make it a toothless paper tiger which can only complain as powerful states ride roughshod over it's founding principles and the nations of their neighbours. Newbury sums it up well:
We should, in these difficult times, be grateful for any support the UN might have, but we should not accept a mischaracterization of the role of international organizations, nor a misreading of the history and character of the United Nations as an organization where its member states, by standing united against threats to peace, law and order, and the continued increase in global prosperity, join to act in concert. Because the greatest threat to sovereignty of peoples is not internationalism, but economic and political turmoil, and the horrors that come in the wake of failed states and lawless actions of lawless dictators.
In Churchill's memory, we should not allow the efforts of the current US administration to kill off the UN to continue unchecked.
Monday, April 25, 2005
The GOP Still Hate The Troops
I have argued before that the Republican party, George Bush and their appointees at the Pentagon must hate their own troops - for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of life-saving equipment through stealing their pay all the way to making them homeless and bankrupt when they return as heroes from Iraq or Afghnaistan.
Now, via Operation Truth comes an article from the New York Times which gives the tale of "Marines from an infantry company of the 1st Marine Division, which sustained the highest casualty rates of any company in Iraq, spoke up about unnecessary casualties due to shortages of needed armor and resources." It's a must read - stories of Foreign Legion desperation when, short of men, the Marines manned outposts with dummies, a C.O. who seems to have been admired by his men but who was relieved for speaking out against higher authorities fuckups...and the most telling quote of all:
Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.
Shall I tell them that their own medical staff estimate about half, then?
The Bush administration couldn't plan a drinking competition in a brewery. My colleague Fester has a well researched post over at the Unpaid Punditry Corps where he argues that they are destroying their own army, in a very real and worrying way.
It is not a sudden event; instead it is a process. The reserves and National Guard are rapidly hollowing out. The units that are on the second and third tour are experiencing massive retention problems combined with combat casualities. Recruiting problems for the ground combat forces are still occurring despite exceedingly high incentives, and lower standards. And now the officer corps is starting to face the threat of a long term degradation of new officers.
*Ssssh...don't mention the Vietnam parallel, it upsets all those ostritches on the Right*
Now, via Operation Truth comes an article from the New York Times which gives the tale of "Marines from an infantry company of the 1st Marine Division, which sustained the highest casualty rates of any company in Iraq, spoke up about unnecessary casualties due to shortages of needed armor and resources." It's a must read - stories of Foreign Legion desperation when, short of men, the Marines manned outposts with dummies, a C.O. who seems to have been admired by his men but who was relieved for speaking out against higher authorities fuckups...and the most telling quote of all:
Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.
Shall I tell them that their own medical staff estimate about half, then?
The Bush administration couldn't plan a drinking competition in a brewery. My colleague Fester has a well researched post over at the Unpaid Punditry Corps where he argues that they are destroying their own army, in a very real and worrying way.
It is not a sudden event; instead it is a process. The reserves and National Guard are rapidly hollowing out. The units that are on the second and third tour are experiencing massive retention problems combined with combat casualities. Recruiting problems for the ground combat forces are still occurring despite exceedingly high incentives, and lower standards. And now the officer corps is starting to face the threat of a long term degradation of new officers.
*Ssssh...don't mention the Vietnam parallel, it upsets all those ostritches on the Right*
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Frist Speech Actually Supports "Liberal" Judges
Well, Bill Frist stayed away from the crap his Dominionist backers spout about the filibuster "is being used against people of faith" and good for him. He actually stressed in his speech that a vote is the democratic thing to do - and if you don't have a majority of the votes then that's tough, you can work for change but you can't change the vote. You know what, even if that democratic method takes the country into the hands of some totalitarian religious thugs who want to bring back death penalties for biblical offences such as homosexuality, then that's the way the country is set up. If you don't like that, change the system don't abuse it. It's one of the dangers of democracy that it can be subverted by morons bent on totalitarianism. Hitler was elected by a landslide.
However, Bill Frist is a slick operator and while he may be using the Dominionists as part of his ticket to the White House he isn't going to be their puppet any more than Bush was. Yesterday Colbert King in the Washington Post warned that
if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest.
Well, Frist sidestepped the bullet and in so doing gave ammunition to those who would fight these nutters who are hijacking both Christianity and the political process. Here's what Frist said that is really key:
Now some Republicans – even some conservatives – don’t think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees.
They’re concerned that in the future Republicans won’t be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.
Well, that may be true. But if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won’t be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.
Ladies and gentlemen, our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair.
When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect – not retaliation. I won’t go along with that.
Now I doubt his Dominionist Republican compatriots paid enough attention in logic class to figure the next bit out, so I will tell them.
Once there has been a vote, up or down, on a judge - that's it. If the judge is confirmed, he or she is confirmed. That's the way the US democratic process is set up.
So Bill Frist is telling you to stop whining about the "liberal" judges who, according to your zealot leaders, "have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
Tough shit. There was a vote and those judges were confirmed - live with it.
Thanks Bill - you just stole the teeth from your backers on this issue and they didn't even notice. Probably neither did the Democrats. Slick.
However, Bill Frist is a slick operator and while he may be using the Dominionists as part of his ticket to the White House he isn't going to be their puppet any more than Bush was. Yesterday Colbert King in the Washington Post warned that
if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest.
Well, Frist sidestepped the bullet and in so doing gave ammunition to those who would fight these nutters who are hijacking both Christianity and the political process. Here's what Frist said that is really key:
Now some Republicans – even some conservatives – don’t think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees.
They’re concerned that in the future Republicans won’t be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.
Well, that may be true. But if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won’t be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.
Ladies and gentlemen, our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair.
When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect – not retaliation. I won’t go along with that.
Now I doubt his Dominionist Republican compatriots paid enough attention in logic class to figure the next bit out, so I will tell them.
Once there has been a vote, up or down, on a judge - that's it. If the judge is confirmed, he or she is confirmed. That's the way the US democratic process is set up.
So Bill Frist is telling you to stop whining about the "liberal" judges who, according to your zealot leaders, "have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
Tough shit. There was a vote and those judges were confirmed - live with it.
Thanks Bill - you just stole the teeth from your backers on this issue and they didn't even notice. Probably neither did the Democrats. Slick.
"Command Responsibility" ,Torture and Impeachment
The phrase is "cognitive dissonance" - or maybe it's "cover-up".
Documents obtained through the ACLU lawsuit show that Iraqi citizens, themselves known to be innocent of any crimes, were held hostage by US forces in Abu Graib prison in an attempt to pressure relatives suspected of involvement in the insurgency to turn themselves in - a clear violation of international law. Other documents show that an officer at US Army Headquarters in Baghdad, Captain William Ponce, sent an email circular to interrogators in Iraq. In that message, he asked interrogation staff what techniques they thought would be more effective at "breaking" Iraqi detainees. "The gloves are coming off," Ponce wrote, "we want these individuals broken." Responses included "wish lists" of torture techniques such as "closed-fist strikes," hitting detainees with phone books, low-voltage electrical torture and the use of stress positions to induce muscle fatigue.
The UN's top human rights investigator in Afghanistan has been forced out under American pressure just days after he presented a report criticising the US military for detaining suspects without trial and holding them in secret prisons. The UN eliminated Mr Bassiouni's job last week after Washington had pressed for his mandate to be changed so that it would no longer cover the US military.
His report, based on a year spent travelling around Afghanistan interviewing Afghans and delivered just days earlier, estimated that around 1,000 Afghans had been detained and accused US troops of breaking into homes, arresting residents and abusing them.
The military's own investigation has cleared Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and his top deputies of any wrongdoing in the face of overwhelming evidence of a culture that encouraged and condoned torture and wrongful imprisonment throughout the military. The investigation was conducted by a Lt. General, although investigations against an officer where criminal charges might be brought are usually made by someone of senior rank. "An Army Reserve one-star general has been reprimanded, and the outcome of seven other senior Army officer cases could not be learned Friday."
The Washington Post reports that:
"Human Rights Watch called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the roles of all U.S. officials "who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture."
Human Rights Watch also asked Congress to launch an independent and bipartisan probe -- similar to that of the 9/11 commission -- to investigate the roles of senior leaders in abuse, including President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former CIA director George J. Tenet."
Like that's ever going to happen. (/cynicism)
The concept that is important in law here is "command responsibility" - for a Commander in Chief or a Secretary of Defence the "I had no knowledge" defense doesn't work, standards are and should be higher than they are for the ordinary politico. This whole horrific scandal, supported by literally thousands of pages of documents that the Pentagon had to be sued for before they would release them, is an impeachment affair and Bush's advisors know it even if the Democrats haven't caught on yet.
One of my rightwing colleagues once said he would refuse to stand by or vote for Bush ever again if allegations of systematic torture, condoned from the very top and down through the chain of command, were ever substantiated. I wonder if he is ready to stand by that promise yet?
UPDATE 26th April
It is very much worth your while to read the whole Human Rights Watch document outlining the cause for criminal proceedings against Donald Rumsfield, George Tenet, Lt. General Sanchez and Maj. General Miller. The section on Donald Rumsfield's complicity in, knowledge of and responsibility for torture and abuse is particularly compelling.
On December 2, 2002, responding to a request from officers at Guantánamo, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners in Guantánamo that was an unprecedented expansion of army doctrine. The techniques approved by Rumsfeld included:
“The use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours”;
Isolation up to 30 days;
“The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning”;
“Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli”;
“Removal of all comfort items (including religious items)”;
“Forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc)”;
“Removal of clothing”; and
“Using detainees’ individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress.”105
These methods violate the protections afforded to POWs, the presumptive classification of many of the Guantánamo detainees. Depending on how they are used, these methods also likely violate the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners, regardless of whether the prisoners are entitled to POW protections. Their use on prisoners would thus constitute a war crime.
Additionally, Army Field Manual 34-52 cites “forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time” as an example of torture. Mental torture includes “abnormal sleep deprivation,” which may or may not have resulted from the authorization of light control and loud music. The field manual also prohibits forms of coercion including threats. Perhaps most importantly, the field manual instructs soldiers, when in doubt, to ask themselves: “If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against U.S. POWs, you would believe such actions violate international or U.S. law.”
As the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Torture made clear in his 2004 report to the U.N. General Assembly, the techniques also violate the prohibitions of the Convention against Torture:
The Special Rapporteur has recently received information on certain methods that have been condoned and used to secure information from suspected terrorists. They notably include holding detainees in painful and/or stressful positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, depriving them of clothing, stripping detainees naked and threatening them with dogs. The jurisprudence of both international and regional human rights mechanisms is unanimous in stating that such methods violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.
Indeed, the United States has denounced as torture these same methods when practiced by other countries, including Burma (being forced to squat or remain in uncomfortable periods for long periods of time), Egypt (stripping and blindfolding of prisoners), Eritrea (tying of hands and feet for extended periods of time), Iran (sleep deprivation and “suspension for long periods in contorted positions”), Iraq (food and water deprivation), Jordan (sleep deprivation and solitary confinement), Pakistan (prolonged isolation and denial of food or sleep), Saudi Arabia (sleep deprivation), Tunisia (food and sleep deprivation), and Turkey (prolonged standing, isolation).111 In the most recent report covering the use of torture in 2004, the State Department criticized: Egypt for stripping and blindfolding detainees and pouring cold water on them; Tunisia, Iran, and Libya for using sleep deprivation; Libya for threatening chained detainees with dogs; and North Korea for forcing detainees to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse.
Human Rights Watch points out that Rumsfield et al are not just culpable under the terms of the Geneva Convention or the Convention agianst Torture. Due to the doctrine of "command responsibility", which "holds that individuals who are in civilian or military authority may under certain circumstances be criminally liable not for their actions, but rather for the crimes of those under their command", Rumsfield and others could be charged and prosecuted under US law - namely the War Crimes Act of of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, and the Anti-Torture Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2340.
The War Crimes Act provides criminal punishment for whomever, inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, if either the perpetrator or the victim is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a national of the United States. A “war crime” is defined as any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions or acts which violate common Article 3 of those pacts. “Grave breaches” include “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of prisoners of war (POWs) and of civilians qualified as “protected persons.” Common Article 3 prohibits, inter alia, murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
The Anti-Torture Act criminalizes acts of torture — including attempts to commit torture and conspiracy to commit an act of torture — occurring outside the United States’ territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim. In the case of torture committed within the United States, as for instance at Guantánamo, prosecution would be possible under several federal statutes, among them the civil rights laws, which bar government employees from using excessive force, and laws against homicide, battery, and the like. Similarly, state criminal laws could be invoked for any abuse taking place within particular states.
Compelling stuff. Human Rights Watch call for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate any U.S. officials — no matter their rank or position — who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited ill-treatment against detainees in U.S. custody. They also ask Congress to create a special commission to investigate.
Sceptical as I am that either of these things is likely to happen, I agree with HRW that they should.
So should you.
His report, based on a year spent travelling around Afghanistan interviewing Afghans and delivered just days earlier, estimated that around 1,000 Afghans had been detained and accused US troops of breaking into homes, arresting residents and abusing them.
"Human Rights Watch called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the roles of all U.S. officials "who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture."
Human Rights Watch also asked Congress to launch an independent and bipartisan probe -- similar to that of the 9/11 commission -- to investigate the roles of senior leaders in abuse, including President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former CIA director George J. Tenet."
Like that's ever going to happen. (/cynicism)
The concept that is important in law here is "command responsibility" - for a Commander in Chief or a Secretary of Defence the "I had no knowledge" defense doesn't work, standards are and should be higher than they are for the ordinary politico. This whole horrific scandal, supported by literally thousands of pages of documents that the Pentagon had to be sued for before they would release them, is an impeachment affair and Bush's advisors know it even if the Democrats haven't caught on yet.
One of my rightwing colleagues once said he would refuse to stand by or vote for Bush ever again if allegations of systematic torture, condoned from the very top and down through the chain of command, were ever substantiated. I wonder if he is ready to stand by that promise yet?
UPDATE 26th April
It is very much worth your while to read the whole Human Rights Watch document outlining the cause for criminal proceedings against Donald Rumsfield, George Tenet, Lt. General Sanchez and Maj. General Miller. The section on Donald Rumsfield's complicity in, knowledge of and responsibility for torture and abuse is particularly compelling.
On December 2, 2002, responding to a request from officers at Guantánamo, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized a list of techniques for interrogation of prisoners in Guantánamo that was an unprecedented expansion of army doctrine. The techniques approved by Rumsfeld included:
“The use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours”;
Isolation up to 30 days;
“The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning”;
“Deprivation of light and auditory stimuli”;
“Removal of all comfort items (including religious items)”;
“Forced grooming (shaving of facial hair, etc)”;
“Removal of clothing”; and
“Using detainees’ individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress.”105
These methods violate the protections afforded to POWs, the presumptive classification of many of the Guantánamo detainees. Depending on how they are used, these methods also likely violate the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners, regardless of whether the prisoners are entitled to POW protections. Their use on prisoners would thus constitute a war crime.
Additionally, Army Field Manual 34-52 cites “forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time” as an example of torture. Mental torture includes “abnormal sleep deprivation,” which may or may not have resulted from the authorization of light control and loud music. The field manual also prohibits forms of coercion including threats. Perhaps most importantly, the field manual instructs soldiers, when in doubt, to ask themselves: “If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against U.S. POWs, you would believe such actions violate international or U.S. law.”
As the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Torture made clear in his 2004 report to the U.N. General Assembly, the techniques also violate the prohibitions of the Convention against Torture:
The Special Rapporteur has recently received information on certain methods that have been condoned and used to secure information from suspected terrorists. They notably include holding detainees in painful and/or stressful positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, depriving them of clothing, stripping detainees naked and threatening them with dogs. The jurisprudence of both international and regional human rights mechanisms is unanimous in stating that such methods violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.
Indeed, the United States has denounced as torture these same methods when practiced by other countries, including Burma (being forced to squat or remain in uncomfortable periods for long periods of time), Egypt (stripping and blindfolding of prisoners), Eritrea (tying of hands and feet for extended periods of time), Iran (sleep deprivation and “suspension for long periods in contorted positions”), Iraq (food and water deprivation), Jordan (sleep deprivation and solitary confinement), Pakistan (prolonged isolation and denial of food or sleep), Saudi Arabia (sleep deprivation), Tunisia (food and sleep deprivation), and Turkey (prolonged standing, isolation).111 In the most recent report covering the use of torture in 2004, the State Department criticized: Egypt for stripping and blindfolding detainees and pouring cold water on them; Tunisia, Iran, and Libya for using sleep deprivation; Libya for threatening chained detainees with dogs; and North Korea for forcing detainees to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse.
Human Rights Watch points out that Rumsfield et al are not just culpable under the terms of the Geneva Convention or the Convention agianst Torture. Due to the doctrine of "command responsibility", which "holds that individuals who are in civilian or military authority may under certain circumstances be criminally liable not for their actions, but rather for the crimes of those under their command", Rumsfield and others could be charged and prosecuted under US law - namely the War Crimes Act of of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, and the Anti-Torture Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2340.
The War Crimes Act provides criminal punishment for whomever, inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, if either the perpetrator or the victim is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a national of the United States. A “war crime” is defined as any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions or acts which violate common Article 3 of those pacts. “Grave breaches” include “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of prisoners of war (POWs) and of civilians qualified as “protected persons.” Common Article 3 prohibits, inter alia, murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
The Anti-Torture Act criminalizes acts of torture — including attempts to commit torture and conspiracy to commit an act of torture — occurring outside the United States’ territorial jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim. In the case of torture committed within the United States, as for instance at Guantánamo, prosecution would be possible under several federal statutes, among them the civil rights laws, which bar government employees from using excessive force, and laws against homicide, battery, and the like. Similarly, state criminal laws could be invoked for any abuse taking place within particular states.
Compelling stuff. Human Rights Watch call for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate any U.S. officials — no matter their rank or position — who participated in, ordered, or had command responsibility for war crimes or torture, or other prohibited ill-treatment against detainees in U.S. custody. They also ask Congress to create a special commission to investigate.
Sceptical as I am that either of these things is likely to happen, I agree with HRW that they should.
So should you.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Dominionists Want To Strip Court's Funds
From the LA Times, who have a tape which "features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work."
The tape includes noted Dominionist leaders Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, and James Dobson from Focus on The Family. It was made at a March 17th session of the conference both attended along with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and was given to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In it, Perkins and Dobson speak about the Dominionist plan to do away with troublesome courts by simply disenfranchising them.
Some soundbites:
Perkins: There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench.
Perkins: What they're [Congressional Republican leaders like Delay and Frist] thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them...just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out there with nothing to do.
Dobson: Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court...They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone.
Dobson: Folks, I am telling you all that it is going to be the mother of all battles...And it's right around the corner
Dobson and Perkins also spoke about the hold Dominionists feel they have over Republican politicians:
Dobson: We've got a right to hold them accountable for what happens here and Sometimes it's just amazing to me that they seem to forget how they got here.
Robert Stevenson, a spokesman for Frist, said Thursday that the Senate leader does not agree with the idea of defunding courts or shutting them down, pointing to Frist's comments earlier this month embracing a "fair and independent judiciary." A spokesman for DeLay declined to comment.
However Delay, in an April 13th session with reporters said "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse,"
Looks like the next assault on free speech, with the eventual aim of replacing the secular state with a system of religious law, is already underway.
The tape includes noted Dominionist leaders Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, and James Dobson from Focus on The Family. It was made at a March 17th session of the conference both attended along with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and was given to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In it, Perkins and Dobson speak about the Dominionist plan to do away with troublesome courts by simply disenfranchising them.
Some soundbites:
Perkins: There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench.
Perkins: What they're [Congressional Republican leaders like Delay and Frist] thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them...just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out there with nothing to do.
Dobson: Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court...They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone.
Dobson: Folks, I am telling you all that it is going to be the mother of all battles...And it's right around the corner
Dobson and Perkins also spoke about the hold Dominionists feel they have over Republican politicians:
Dobson: We've got a right to hold them accountable for what happens here and Sometimes it's just amazing to me that they seem to forget how they got here.
Robert Stevenson, a spokesman for Frist, said Thursday that the Senate leader does not agree with the idea of defunding courts or shutting them down, pointing to Frist's comments earlier this month embracing a "fair and independent judiciary." A spokesman for DeLay declined to comment.
However Delay, in an April 13th session with reporters said "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse,"
Looks like the next assault on free speech, with the eventual aim of replacing the secular state with a system of religious law, is already underway.
Spitting Image - Best Political Comedy Ever
Another quirky challenge from the Unpaid Pundits this week:
Which comic/humorist in history has gotten the best knocks on politics and government - has picked it apart best for both humor and critical benefit?
Unfortunately, I suspect my American colleagues have never seen the show that took political satire to undreamed of heights and remains the standard to which all others must aspire. Spitting Image ran for over a decade during the years of Conservative rule in the UK, and was without doubt a major influence in their eventual demise and the dethroning of Margaret Thatcher. Find more on the show here and here.
Spitting Image was a show featuring incredibly well done charicature latex puppets and they lampooned everyone from Ronald Reagan (The President's Brain is Missing) through to the Queen and Pope John Paul II. Voiced by some of the best impressionists then available and scripted by the cream of British comedy writers, the show was unstoppable and everyone watched it - politicians would have tapes made of the show and rushed to the Commons so that they could see what the burning issues of the next week would be.
Centre stage (as only to be expected from a topical satire show) were the politicians, in particular Mrs. Thatcher, who was portrayed as a bullying, fascist, bald male tyrant, and Ronald Reagan (a bumbling, nuke-obsessed fool with a (literally) missing brain). Providing admirable support were Bovver boy Norman Tebbit, bland-as-sand Geoffrey Howe, raving loony Michael Heseltine, scandalous Cecil Parkinson, Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson, Norman Fowler, Douglas Hurd (he of the Mr. Whippy hair-do), slug-like Kenneth Baker and, on the other side of the House, the verbally unstoppable Neil Kinnock and the actually spitting Roy Hattersley.
Everyone has their favourite segments, like the time the Queen visits the cigarette paper factory and asks the stunned manager if the large papers are for making really big reefers or the infamous Maggie and Ronnie "phone sex" bit. Two in particular, however, aired just as the leadership elections were coming up for the Conservative Party and ensured that no-one in her Cabinet would be able to support Thatcher's re-election without ending their own career prospects and their own self-images.
The Thatcher cabinet are sitting in a restaurant. The waiter asks Margaret Thatcher for her order and she replies "Raw Meat". The waiter then asks "And for the vegetables?" to which Thatcher replies "Oh, they'll have the same".
Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittan are standing at the men's urinal in a single sex toilet and Margaret Thatcher walks in and goes to the toilet next to them standing up. After she leaves Howe turns to Brittan and confides 'I can never go when she's in here'.
Two short segments which said that anyone in her cabinet who supported her was to be seen as an unmanly vegetable...and everyone in the country knew it. She was finished.
Oh, if only the US had it's own version, with as much guts and bite, right now.
Which comic/humorist in history has gotten the best knocks on politics and government - has picked it apart best for both humor and critical benefit?
Unfortunately, I suspect my American colleagues have never seen the show that took political satire to undreamed of heights and remains the standard to which all others must aspire. Spitting Image ran for over a decade during the years of Conservative rule in the UK, and was without doubt a major influence in their eventual demise and the dethroning of Margaret Thatcher. Find more on the show here and here.
Spitting Image was a show featuring incredibly well done charicature latex puppets and they lampooned everyone from Ronald Reagan (The President's Brain is Missing) through to the Queen and Pope John Paul II. Voiced by some of the best impressionists then available and scripted by the cream of British comedy writers, the show was unstoppable and everyone watched it - politicians would have tapes made of the show and rushed to the Commons so that they could see what the burning issues of the next week would be.
Centre stage (as only to be expected from a topical satire show) were the politicians, in particular Mrs. Thatcher, who was portrayed as a bullying, fascist, bald male tyrant, and Ronald Reagan (a bumbling, nuke-obsessed fool with a (literally) missing brain). Providing admirable support were Bovver boy Norman Tebbit, bland-as-sand Geoffrey Howe, raving loony Michael Heseltine, scandalous Cecil Parkinson, Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson, Norman Fowler, Douglas Hurd (he of the Mr. Whippy hair-do), slug-like Kenneth Baker and, on the other side of the House, the verbally unstoppable Neil Kinnock and the actually spitting Roy Hattersley.
Everyone has their favourite segments, like the time the Queen visits the cigarette paper factory and asks the stunned manager if the large papers are for making really big reefers or the infamous Maggie and Ronnie "phone sex" bit. Two in particular, however, aired just as the leadership elections were coming up for the Conservative Party and ensured that no-one in her Cabinet would be able to support Thatcher's re-election without ending their own career prospects and their own self-images.
The Thatcher cabinet are sitting in a restaurant. The waiter asks Margaret Thatcher for her order and she replies "Raw Meat". The waiter then asks "And for the vegetables?" to which Thatcher replies "Oh, they'll have the same".
Geoffrey Howe and Leon Brittan are standing at the men's urinal in a single sex toilet and Margaret Thatcher walks in and goes to the toilet next to them standing up. After she leaves Howe turns to Brittan and confides 'I can never go when she's in here'.
Two short segments which said that anyone in her cabinet who supported her was to be seen as an unmanly vegetable...and everyone in the country knew it. She was finished.
Oh, if only the US had it's own version, with as much guts and bite, right now.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Bush No Longer A Texan
From Goose at Comments from Left Field comes the news that, according to his tax return, Dubya has as his home address a postal box in Illinois. That alone is cause enough for this leftie blogger in Texas to go drink a beer or two in celebration. But wait, it gets better...
Bush voted in Crawford, Texas. Even just the momentary contemplation of the poetic justice involved in George being found guilty of one personal count of electoral fraud is enough to give me a smile. Unfortunatley, it will never happen.
But what about that P.O. Box? It belongs to the Northern Trust Company, which handles the blind trust the Bush's use for their holdings since George took office. Is this the same Northern Trust Company which was sued by severed Enron employees for breaching it's fiduciary duties as a Trustee of Enron's Corporation Savings Plan? It seems likely.
Bush voted in Crawford, Texas. Even just the momentary contemplation of the poetic justice involved in George being found guilty of one personal count of electoral fraud is enough to give me a smile. Unfortunatley, it will never happen.
But what about that P.O. Box? It belongs to the Northern Trust Company, which handles the blind trust the Bush's use for their holdings since George took office. Is this the same Northern Trust Company which was sued by severed Enron employees for breaching it's fiduciary duties as a Trustee of Enron's Corporation Savings Plan? It seems likely.
On Being Relatively Moderate
My friend PSoTD reported today on the latest moronicism of Rush Limbaugh, who is annoyed by Voinovich and Chafee about the Bolton nomination unraveling. It seems the Great Mouth said:
Moderates do not have principles. They stick their finger in the air and go whichever way the wind is blowing. Moderates have principles? It is an oxymoron.
Yeah, that'll help the nation see sense, Rush.
Actually, the Mouth is simply parroting other figures from the authoritarian Right or from authoritarian religious groups who have incessantly attacked moral relativism using the same words. To these people, it is important that there be a single, one and only true, TRUTH - because they claim to have it, either as a result of speaking to God or as a result of their superior policies.
The trouble is, they have all missed the boat simply by living in the modern world. As one commenter on the BBC article linked above said:
Society changes, it has to to survive. This, by definition, means that all societies that want to prosper over long periods of time are 'relative'. If you lived in an 'absolute' world, we would still believe slavery was fine, that monarchs were divine beings and we should never leave our place.
Q.E.D.
If TRUTH were an absolute, then we would never advance as we discover knew philosophies, new ways of thinking. We would still hold slavery as acceptable, heresy as a burning offence, tortured confessions as admissable, the establishment of the Christian Church as automatic, the right of Kings as divinely mandated. The founders of America, all informed by their knowledge of the Enlightenment, realised that a practical relativism is the most sensible course for a democratic and free government "of the people, by the people".
That's why they wanted a seperation between State and religion, never imagining that some would manage to make political beliefs into their religion. That used to be the job of communists - now it's the job of Bushite Republicans. I blame Ayn Rand.
Moderates do not have principles. They stick their finger in the air and go whichever way the wind is blowing. Moderates have principles? It is an oxymoron.
Yeah, that'll help the nation see sense, Rush.
Actually, the Mouth is simply parroting other figures from the authoritarian Right or from authoritarian religious groups who have incessantly attacked moral relativism using the same words. To these people, it is important that there be a single, one and only true, TRUTH - because they claim to have it, either as a result of speaking to God or as a result of their superior policies.
The trouble is, they have all missed the boat simply by living in the modern world. As one commenter on the BBC article linked above said:
Society changes, it has to to survive. This, by definition, means that all societies that want to prosper over long periods of time are 'relative'. If you lived in an 'absolute' world, we would still believe slavery was fine, that monarchs were divine beings and we should never leave our place.
Q.E.D.
If TRUTH were an absolute, then we would never advance as we discover knew philosophies, new ways of thinking. We would still hold slavery as acceptable, heresy as a burning offence, tortured confessions as admissable, the establishment of the Christian Church as automatic, the right of Kings as divinely mandated. The founders of America, all informed by their knowledge of the Enlightenment, realised that a practical relativism is the most sensible course for a democratic and free government "of the people, by the people".
That's why they wanted a seperation between State and religion, never imagining that some would manage to make political beliefs into their religion. That used to be the job of communists - now it's the job of Bushite Republicans. I blame Ayn Rand.
Spain To Grant Gay Marriage Rights
In the "socialism gets some things right" department, Spain - the most religious nation in Europe - is about to approve a bill ensuring the right of homosexual couples to marry and adopt children. The bill has already passed the House and is expected to easily pass in the Senate too. Spain will join Belgium and the Netherlands as countries which give full legal marriage rights to gays.
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
The Spanish Prime Minister issued a statement in which he said ""One of the guarantees of democracy is the freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom to carry out a political project with the citizens' vote."
Viva Espana!
Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar argued that the bill overcomes "the barriers of discrimination, many of them with deep historical or primitive roots, which affect rights and freedoms and, in a specific way, the extension of free choice in the search for happiness, an unwritten basic right".
The Spanish Prime Minister issued a statement in which he said ""One of the guarantees of democracy is the freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom to carry out a political project with the citizens' vote."
Viva Espana!
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Twin Wars: Part Three - Planning To Win Against Terror
I recently embarked on an ambitious project - to outline a progressive stance for successfully bringing to a close the Twin Wars on terrorism and in Iraq. I began in Part One with a retrospective, examining the issues that had arisen to date and making the divisions between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq obvious. I then continued in Part Two by formulating a plan for moving forward in the War in Iraq, an occupation which I have described as "good thing done badly, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons."
This post takes as it's subject matter firstly the battle for Afghanistan and secondly a successful waging of the War on Terror, the war we should always have been involved in.
Afghanistan - The right war in the right place
There is never been a doubt in my mind that when the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama BinLaden to world justice an invasion of Afghansitan to remove that regime and apprehend the extremists who had backed and been involved in several atrocious acts of terrorism became neccessary. In the first phases, the battle was carried off with great skill and courage by US forces, reducing the repressive Taliban and their AlQaida allies in a matter of weeks. However, at that point the US and the Coalition became distracted by the trumped-up War in Iraq and several crucial mistakes were made. These mistakes will have to be addressed sooner or later or the occupation of Afghanistan will continue to drag on and perhaps even go into reverse. Unfortunately, much that needs to be done will have to await freeing up of resources from the occupation of Iraq - a matter which I firmly believe my own suggestions for the occupation there provide a means to better do.
Afghanistan is currently costing the American taxpayer about $1 billion a month - much of which is wasted money due to the corruption and inefficiencies we are all familiar with from Iraq and which I have dealt with in my previous posts.
The Defence Department "doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any degree of reliability and specificity how we spent" tens of millions in war-related emergency funds set aside by Congress, Comptroller General David Walker told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee.
My primary solution is to cancel all contracts which have not begun within a reasonable timeframe of their award and re-offer them by a process of competitive bidding, with a weighting in favour of local Afghani businesses. The whole operation should be closely overseen by US Inspector General staff and Afghan inspectors. In this way, much needed cash and employemnt enters the local economy at the same time as desperately needed reconstruction finally goes ahead at a realistic pace. Pimping and protecting vested corporate interests and political pork barrels in the US or the UK is no longer an option if the problems attendant on lack of reconstruction are to be solved. Those corporations which cry foul will only show themselves as more interested in making a buck than in being patriotic.
Working Afghanis with a realistic wage and basic amenities, just like Iraqis, will be far less likely to turn to crime or extremism. Most of the other problems experienced in Afghanistan are also identical in character to those of the Iraqi occupation and democtaisation process and can be solved in the same ways - building up a force which can provide the nation with it's own internal security; dealing with corruption in government; building and equipping an as yet non-existant force for national defense; ending the illwill generated by illegal detentions and torture; changing the nature of Coalition operations to better win "hearts and minds", avoiding the Lebanon/Syria model of de facto client state and turning the new nation loose as a free state in it's own right. I refer the reader to Part Two of these essays for details.
There are two factors which are more than a little unique in Afghanistan, however, and I would like to deal with these now - the related issues of drug trafficking and the juggling act between militias and terrorists.
Almost all of the world's heroin crop is now grown in Afghanistan. Very little of the crop is grown by local villagers and even where it is they sell to local warlords who give them very little cash in return. Often, it is these very warlords who force them to grow opium poppy in the first place. The crop grown by villagers should be replaced by income from jobs in reconstruction and by another cash crop such as oil-seed rape or flax. Simply descending upon a village and burning the opium crop will only feed resentments and violence, as has recently been proven. Especially in the light of the preferential treatment given to those very same warlords, upon whom the occupying forces rely upon for local enforcement as well as for much of the fighting against Al Qaida/Taliban militants.
Herein lies the greatest danger in Afghanistan. There are only 17,000 Coalition troops in the country at present - easily outnumbered even by the militants resident in the Pakistani city of Karachi just across the border, where it is estimated by Jane's Defence that over 25,000 graduates of Al Quaida training camps live. Add in the several thousands of renegade Taliban and militants in the border mountains and the Coalition forces in place are heavily outnumbered. Even given a huge advantage in weapons and tactics, they cannot be everywhere at once. The militants are becoming resurgent in Afghanistan, as recent under-reported incidents have borne out.
The US has been using local warlords and their militias to keep civic order and fight the militants in Afghanistan from very early on in the occupation. Germany's top spy, August Hanning, says that Osama binLaden escaped US forces by bribing the Afghan militias tasked with tracking him down. The US has said it used Afghan fighters to reduce casualties among its troops but Herr Hanning said that:
The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted Bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora. There, Bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money."
Hanning went on to say that BinLaden subsequently was able to create a network of sympathisers among tribes in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is the warlords who benefit from 95% of the opium crop, but the Coalition is unable to do anything about their criminal pursuits because they do not have enough troops or resources on the ground to fight both the warlords and the militant terrorists. The almost criminal short-sightedness involved in drawing off these needed resources and soldiers for the War on Iraq therefore becomes readily apparent - and there's little can be done until money, troops and resources can be diverted from Iraq again, which requires solving Iraq's problems at least in the main! The Afghani campaign against terror is far from being "mission accomplished" and may yet, through distraction and inaction, become a lost one.
Fighting Terror on a Global Stage
Suppose we manage to turn around the catalogue of mistakes being made in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost all of which stem from the introduction of an unnecessary "second front" coupled with incompetent planning and a desire for vested interests to profit from the Twin Wars....what then? Well there are several arenas in which shortcomings must be addressed.
The desire to aid "vested interests." Again I cannot stress too strongly, pork barrel politics and corporate corruption must be dealt with strictly and promptly. The Pentagon must be told that multi-billion blue-sky weapons programs will be curtailled for now, especially those funded via the "black" budget. They must also be given clear instructions to stop funding those blue-sky programs via Supplemental Bills which no politician will vote against. It is fraud, pure and simple - those bills should be purely to fund the Twin Wars and eventually only the War on Terror. Recent scandals have proven that corruption in the Pentagon by handing top contracts to favoured corportaions is also wasting needed money.
The natural tendency to wish for new democracies which will be "on our side" must be curtailled. If we are serious about spreading "freedom and liberty" then we must realise that we may not get a new client state for all our money and blood. That's just the way freedom and liberty work. Many of the Middle Eastern politicians who are now active in the new wave of democracy in their nations still intensly dislike the US, Israel and even Europe even so. Trying to coerce them into compliance by creating mirrors of the Lebanon/Syria model, as we have done in Iraq, or gerrymandering anti-democratic voting requirements into their constitutions are transparent moves. It fools no-one and does not win hearts and minds. So we better suck up and drive - A democratic nation is no other nation's lapdog.
Diplomacy, rather than pre-emptive aggression, must be the preferred tactic of the war. It worked in Libya, would eventually have worked in Iraq and may yet work in Iran. For instance, a vast amount could be done to reduce militant Islamic terrorism by simply getting closet rogue-stater Musharaff of Pakistan to actually carry out what he has said he will do. A private ultimatum that he either truly gets with the democracy program or all support is transferred to rival India would be sufficient to force him to do so or lose power when the matter became public.
International bodies such as the UN may need massive reform, but they should be encouraged and used rather than sidestepped once reform is accomplished.
Homeland Security needs a re-evaluation. At present over 80% of the security budget is spent on air travel and the rest is parcelled out between ports, borders, roads and bridges. Silly money and emphasis is being made on bio-terrorism and dirty nukes, when these simply don't present enough of a bang for each buck to be worthwhile to a terrorist organisation. Any reader of technothrillers could come up with a scenario involving an LPG carrier, some shaped charges and a moajor port city which would make far more sense to any terrorist doing a cost - benefit analysis yet these risks are mostly ignored.
Bush has a point on immigration, although I suspect by accident. Easing the process of immigration and an amnesty for undocumented immigrants while still including needed security checks would make any threatened nation safer - at least then the immigrants have a paper trail and a vested interest in their new nation. They would also be paying taxes which could help fund the war.
Our biggest asset in this is our soldiers on the front lines. They have to be treated far better than the current administration has done and those responsible for their shabby treatment should be dismissed.
Talking of taxes, it's going to take time and a lot of money to wage a successful war against terror in all it's stripes - the IRA and ETA, the US supremacists and militias, as well as Islamic nasties. There will have to be a new paradigm - that tax cuts and tax avoidance, even if legal, are inherently unpatriotic while we are at war. They certainly do not generate wealth or industry which could aid in the war.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although I have tried to cover as many points as possible, I know I have missed more than a few. However, I hope I have succeeded in my aim, which was to lay out a cogent and progressive plan for successfully unentangling the Twin Wars and moving forward in the greater battle against terrorism worldwide. I welcome commentary, suggestions and critiques.
This post takes as it's subject matter firstly the battle for Afghanistan and secondly a successful waging of the War on Terror, the war we should always have been involved in.
Afghanistan - The right war in the right place
There is never been a doubt in my mind that when the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama BinLaden to world justice an invasion of Afghansitan to remove that regime and apprehend the extremists who had backed and been involved in several atrocious acts of terrorism became neccessary. In the first phases, the battle was carried off with great skill and courage by US forces, reducing the repressive Taliban and their AlQaida allies in a matter of weeks. However, at that point the US and the Coalition became distracted by the trumped-up War in Iraq and several crucial mistakes were made. These mistakes will have to be addressed sooner or later or the occupation of Afghanistan will continue to drag on and perhaps even go into reverse. Unfortunately, much that needs to be done will have to await freeing up of resources from the occupation of Iraq - a matter which I firmly believe my own suggestions for the occupation there provide a means to better do.
Afghanistan is currently costing the American taxpayer about $1 billion a month - much of which is wasted money due to the corruption and inefficiencies we are all familiar with from Iraq and which I have dealt with in my previous posts.
The Defence Department "doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any degree of reliability and specificity how we spent" tens of millions in war-related emergency funds set aside by Congress, Comptroller General David Walker told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee.
My primary solution is to cancel all contracts which have not begun within a reasonable timeframe of their award and re-offer them by a process of competitive bidding, with a weighting in favour of local Afghani businesses. The whole operation should be closely overseen by US Inspector General staff and Afghan inspectors. In this way, much needed cash and employemnt enters the local economy at the same time as desperately needed reconstruction finally goes ahead at a realistic pace. Pimping and protecting vested corporate interests and political pork barrels in the US or the UK is no longer an option if the problems attendant on lack of reconstruction are to be solved. Those corporations which cry foul will only show themselves as more interested in making a buck than in being patriotic.
Working Afghanis with a realistic wage and basic amenities, just like Iraqis, will be far less likely to turn to crime or extremism. Most of the other problems experienced in Afghanistan are also identical in character to those of the Iraqi occupation and democtaisation process and can be solved in the same ways - building up a force which can provide the nation with it's own internal security; dealing with corruption in government; building and equipping an as yet non-existant force for national defense; ending the illwill generated by illegal detentions and torture; changing the nature of Coalition operations to better win "hearts and minds", avoiding the Lebanon/Syria model of de facto client state and turning the new nation loose as a free state in it's own right. I refer the reader to Part Two of these essays for details.
There are two factors which are more than a little unique in Afghanistan, however, and I would like to deal with these now - the related issues of drug trafficking and the juggling act between militias and terrorists.
Almost all of the world's heroin crop is now grown in Afghanistan. Very little of the crop is grown by local villagers and even where it is they sell to local warlords who give them very little cash in return. Often, it is these very warlords who force them to grow opium poppy in the first place. The crop grown by villagers should be replaced by income from jobs in reconstruction and by another cash crop such as oil-seed rape or flax. Simply descending upon a village and burning the opium crop will only feed resentments and violence, as has recently been proven. Especially in the light of the preferential treatment given to those very same warlords, upon whom the occupying forces rely upon for local enforcement as well as for much of the fighting against Al Qaida/Taliban militants.
Herein lies the greatest danger in Afghanistan. There are only 17,000 Coalition troops in the country at present - easily outnumbered even by the militants resident in the Pakistani city of Karachi just across the border, where it is estimated by Jane's Defence that over 25,000 graduates of Al Quaida training camps live. Add in the several thousands of renegade Taliban and militants in the border mountains and the Coalition forces in place are heavily outnumbered. Even given a huge advantage in weapons and tactics, they cannot be everywhere at once. The militants are becoming resurgent in Afghanistan, as recent under-reported incidents have borne out.
The US has been using local warlords and their militias to keep civic order and fight the militants in Afghanistan from very early on in the occupation. Germany's top spy, August Hanning, says that Osama binLaden escaped US forces by bribing the Afghan militias tasked with tracking him down. The US has said it used Afghan fighters to reduce casualties among its troops but Herr Hanning said that:
The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted Bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora. There, Bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money."
Hanning went on to say that BinLaden subsequently was able to create a network of sympathisers among tribes in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is the warlords who benefit from 95% of the opium crop, but the Coalition is unable to do anything about their criminal pursuits because they do not have enough troops or resources on the ground to fight both the warlords and the militant terrorists. The almost criminal short-sightedness involved in drawing off these needed resources and soldiers for the War on Iraq therefore becomes readily apparent - and there's little can be done until money, troops and resources can be diverted from Iraq again, which requires solving Iraq's problems at least in the main! The Afghani campaign against terror is far from being "mission accomplished" and may yet, through distraction and inaction, become a lost one.
Fighting Terror on a Global Stage
Suppose we manage to turn around the catalogue of mistakes being made in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost all of which stem from the introduction of an unnecessary "second front" coupled with incompetent planning and a desire for vested interests to profit from the Twin Wars....what then? Well there are several arenas in which shortcomings must be addressed.
In conclusion, I would like to say that although I have tried to cover as many points as possible, I know I have missed more than a few. However, I hope I have succeeded in my aim, which was to lay out a cogent and progressive plan for successfully unentangling the Twin Wars and moving forward in the greater battle against terrorism worldwide. I welcome commentary, suggestions and critiques.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Insta-hoglets
It's a while since I did one of these...
Ten years after the Oklahoma Bombing, experts say that although there are far less radical rightwing militants in militias across the country, the threat has not disappeared entirely. Some have tried to recast their activities as supporting Homeland Security while others have moved on to the next fashionable expression of rightwing violence. Still, they are fuelled by "fear of a globalist, socialist tyrannical conspiracy... an article of faith in the radical right." Oh, you mean like David Horowitz's fantasy world!
Germany's top spy, August Hanning, says that Osama binLaden escaped US forces by bribing the Afghan militias tasked with tracking him down. The US has said it used Afghan fighters to reduce casualties among its troops but Herr Hanning said that:
The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted Bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora. There, Bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money."
Hanning went on to say that binLaden subsequently was able to create a network of sympathisers among tribes in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Oops.
Tom DeLay described himself as "closer to God" but innocent of all charges on Tuesday as a result of intense scrutiny of his ethical conduct. DeLay also claimed to be a victim of a leftwing conspiracy - no doubt the same conspiracy the militias are so worried about.
He's closer to something to do with God, but it's a pretty hot something.
Seventeen Afghans held in Guantanamo Bay have been handed over to the Afghan authorities in the capital, Kabul. All are being freed without charges and join over 200 who have been freed in the last three years. Many of the Afghans complained of abuse and torture whilest at Gitmo.
More proof, were it needed, that many of the 500 or so still held at Gitmo are also innocent and are being abused and held without due process without even the barest flimsy cover of a reason.
No doubt you have already heard that Republicans on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee were forced to delay a vote on John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador to examine new allegations against him of abusive conduct. So I will confine myself to saying a well done to Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) for having some backbone.
A Texas Republican businessman is suing the Republican Party, who he says stole his idea for the "W and Flag" bumper sticker.
You would think, as a Republican himself, he would know how the free market (and the Republican Party) operates - stab 'em in the back and make money (and votes) any way you can. Bush admitted as much in those notorious tapes while talking about the Theocratic Right.
The principal mistake was made already in 2001, when one wanted Bin Laden to be apprehended by the Afghan militias in Tora Bora. There, Bin Laden could buy himself free with a lot of money."
Hanning went on to say that binLaden subsequently was able to create a network of sympathisers among tribes in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Oops.
He's closer to something to do with God, but it's a pretty hot something.
More proof, were it needed, that many of the 500 or so still held at Gitmo are also innocent and are being abused and held without due process without even the barest flimsy cover of a reason.
You would think, as a Republican himself, he would know how the free market (and the Republican Party) operates - stab 'em in the back and make money (and votes) any way you can. Bush admitted as much in those notorious tapes while talking about the Theocratic Right.
Habemus Papem
The Roman Catholic Crurch has a new Pope. As I write this he has just emerged onto the famous balcony at the Vatican to give the Urbi et Orbi blessing.
Cardinal John Ratzinger from Germany has been elected Pope and has taken the name Benedict XVI. (Damn, those Wiki people are fast!)
In the preamble to the blessing he described himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard". Certainly his choice of name, as is traditional, will have a significance. The last Benedict, the fifteenth, elected in 1914, was widely thought of as a moderate after the hardline papacy of Pius X. It may well be that this Pope intends to soften some of the more conservative currents in the Church, for instance curbing the hardline Opus Dei movement. It is also likely that the new Pope's choice of name is intended to hark back to his predecessors outspoken opposition to war. With the papacy vacant upon Pius X's death on 20 August, Benedict XV made a speech on the Church's position and duties, emphasising the need for neutrality and promoting peace and the easing of suffering. After he was elected Pope in the conclave that followed that speech, he organised significant humanitarian efforts (establishing a Vatican bureau, for instance, to help prisoners of war from all nations contact their families) and made many unsuccessful attempts to negotiate peace during the Great War including the Papal Peace Proposal in 1917 and an encyclical pleading for international reconciliation, Pacem Dei munus.
Benedict XVI officiated at the mass for Pope John Paul II and was the Cardinal who announced his death to the world. He had also been Prefect of the Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith. As a Cardinal, he even had his own fan club.
The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith is the oldest of the nine curia. It's purpose as set out by John Paul II is "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence." Historically, it was closely allied to the Inquisition. As Prefect personally appointed by John Paul II, the new Pope has presided over a rather more hardline attitude to human sexuality. On one occasion a priest was chastised over works which did not fit the orthodox pattern and told to revise the books accordingly.
Father Vidal, the offending author, was reminded of the view of the Church that masturbation is "objectively intrinsically evil", of the Church's positions on contraception and in vitro fertilization which he questioned and was given this passage about his thoughts on homosexuality:
The author holds that the doctrine of the Church on homosexuality possesses a certain coherence, but does not enjoy an adequate biblical foundation (28) and suffers from significant conditioning (29) and ambiguities.(30) It reflects the defects present “in the entire historical construct of Christian sexual ethics”.(31) In the moral evaluation of homosexuality, the author adds, one must “adopt a provisional attitude”, formulated “from the perspective of inquiry and openness”.(32) For the person who is irreversibly homosexual, a coherent Christian commitment “does not necessarily lead to the rigid morality of either becoming heterosexual or total abstinence”.(33) These positions are incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.(34) The degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here. (emphasis mine)
In 2002 the Congregation produced an edict (which was not made public) which banned transsexuals from entering consecrated life, orders expulsion of all current transsexual consecrates, and orders church workers not to change baptismal records or otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers.
So, if I were guessing - which I am - then I would say the new Pope may well be more outspoken against war and aggresive foreign policies but will stick to the hardline on sexual morality.
Cardinal John Ratzinger from Germany has been elected Pope and has taken the name Benedict XVI. (Damn, those Wiki people are fast!)
In the preamble to the blessing he described himself as "a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard". Certainly his choice of name, as is traditional, will have a significance. The last Benedict, the fifteenth, elected in 1914, was widely thought of as a moderate after the hardline papacy of Pius X. It may well be that this Pope intends to soften some of the more conservative currents in the Church, for instance curbing the hardline Opus Dei movement. It is also likely that the new Pope's choice of name is intended to hark back to his predecessors outspoken opposition to war. With the papacy vacant upon Pius X's death on 20 August, Benedict XV made a speech on the Church's position and duties, emphasising the need for neutrality and promoting peace and the easing of suffering. After he was elected Pope in the conclave that followed that speech, he organised significant humanitarian efforts (establishing a Vatican bureau, for instance, to help prisoners of war from all nations contact their families) and made many unsuccessful attempts to negotiate peace during the Great War including the Papal Peace Proposal in 1917 and an encyclical pleading for international reconciliation, Pacem Dei munus.
Benedict XVI officiated at the mass for Pope John Paul II and was the Cardinal who announced his death to the world. He had also been Prefect of the Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith. As a Cardinal, he even had his own fan club.
The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith is the oldest of the nine curia. It's purpose as set out by John Paul II is "to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence." Historically, it was closely allied to the Inquisition. As Prefect personally appointed by John Paul II, the new Pope has presided over a rather more hardline attitude to human sexuality. On one occasion a priest was chastised over works which did not fit the orthodox pattern and told to revise the books accordingly.
Father Vidal, the offending author, was reminded of the view of the Church that masturbation is "objectively intrinsically evil", of the Church's positions on contraception and in vitro fertilization which he questioned and was given this passage about his thoughts on homosexuality:
The author holds that the doctrine of the Church on homosexuality possesses a certain coherence, but does not enjoy an adequate biblical foundation (28) and suffers from significant conditioning (29) and ambiguities.(30) It reflects the defects present “in the entire historical construct of Christian sexual ethics”.(31) In the moral evaluation of homosexuality, the author adds, one must “adopt a provisional attitude”, formulated “from the perspective of inquiry and openness”.(32) For the person who is irreversibly homosexual, a coherent Christian commitment “does not necessarily lead to the rigid morality of either becoming heterosexual or total abstinence”.(33) These positions are incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.(34) The degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here. (emphasis mine)
In 2002 the Congregation produced an edict (which was not made public) which banned transsexuals from entering consecrated life, orders expulsion of all current transsexual consecrates, and orders church workers not to change baptismal records or otherwise accommodate transsexual worshippers.
So, if I were guessing - which I am - then I would say the new Pope may well be more outspoken against war and aggresive foreign policies but will stick to the hardline on sexual morality.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Political Kinks
I was bored, ok?
If you enter "Republican sex scandals" into Yahoo search, you get 38,800,000 results.
If you enter "Democrat sex scandals" you get 37,500,000 results.
BUT
If you put in "Republican BDSM" or "Democrat BDSM" the results are 38,800 vs. 21,700 respectively.
So, do Republicans just like kinkier sex or is it the urge to be dominated? Is that why Mistress Condi's boots were such a big hit? Could she be President if she added a whip and studs to her outfits?
I'm just asking...
If you enter "Republican sex scandals" into Yahoo search, you get 38,800,000 results.
If you enter "Democrat sex scandals" you get 37,500,000 results.
BUT
If you put in "Republican BDSM" or "Democrat BDSM" the results are 38,800 vs. 21,700 respectively.
So, do Republicans just like kinkier sex or is it the urge to be dominated? Is that why Mistress Condi's boots were such a big hit? Could she be President if she added a whip and studs to her outfits?
I'm just asking...
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Idiotic Religious Rivalries
Just so everyone knows exactly where I stand on religious intolerance, the following says it better than I ever could in a year of Sabbats, so here it is in it's entirety, courtesy of The Pagan Library:
From: God/dess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Our Children of Earth
Re: Idiotic Religious Rivalries
Dear Children (and believe us, that's all of you), We consider ourselves pretty patient folks. For instance, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right. And about evolution? Boy, nothing is slower than designing that whole Darwinian thing to take place, cell by cell, and gene by gene.
We've been patient through your fashions, civilizations, wars and schemes, and the countless ways you take Us for granted until you get yourselves into big trouble again and again.
We want to let you know about some of the things that are starting to tick Us off.
First of all, your religious rivalries are driving Us up a wall. Enough already! Let's get one thing straight: These are YOUR religions, not Ours.
We're the whole enchilada; We're beyond them all. Every one of your religions claims there is only one of Us (which by the way, is absolutely true). But in the very next breath, each religion claims it's Our favorite one.
And each claims it's scriptures were written personally by Us, and that all the other scriptures are man-made. Oy Vey. How do We even begin to put a stop to such complicated nonsense?
Okay, listen up now. We're your Father AND Mother, and We don't play favorites among Our children.
Also, We hate to break it to you, but We don't write. Our longhand is awful and We've always been more of "doers" anyway. So ALL of your books, including those Bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired, remarkable people, but they also made mistakes here and there. We made sure of that so that you would never trust a written word more than your own living heart.
You see, one human being to Us, even a bum on the street, is worth more than all the Holy Books in the world. That's just the kind of folks we are.
Our spirit is not a historical thing. It's alive right here, right now, as fresh as your next breath.
Holy books and religious rites are sacred and powerful, but not more so than the least of you. They were only meant to steer you in the right direction, not to keep you arguing with each other, and certainly not to keep you from trusting your own personal connection with Us.
Which brings Us to Our next point about your nonsense. You act like We need you and your religions to stick up for Us or "win souls" for Our sake.
Please, don't do Us any favors. We can stand quite well on our own, thank you. We don't need you to defend Us, and We don't need constant credit. We just want you to be good to each other.
And another thing, We don't get all worked up over money or politics, so stop dragging Our names into your dramas. For example, We swear to Us ::::smile::::, that We never threatened Oral Roberts. We never rode in any of Rajneesh's Rolls Royces. We never told Pat Robertson to run for president, and We've never, EVER had a conversation with Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, or Jimmy Swaggart! Of course, come Judgment Day, We certainly intend to....
The thing is, We want you to stop thinking of religion as some sort of loyalty pledge to Us.
The true purpose of your religions is so that YOU can become more aware of Us, not the other way around. Believe Us, We know you already. We know what's in each of your hearts, and We love you with no strings attached.
Lighten up and enjoy Us. That's what religion is best for. What you seem to forget is how mysterious We are.
You look at the petty differences in your Scriptures and say, "Well, if THIS is the truth, then THAT can't be!" But instead of trying to figure out Our Paradoxes and Unfathomable Nature, which by the way, you NEVER will, why not open your hearts to the simple common threads in all religions.
You know what We're talking about. Love and respect everyone. Be kind, even when life is scary or confusing. Take courage and be of good cheer, for We are always with you. Learn how to be quiet, so you can hear Our still, small voice. (We don't like to shout).
Leave the world a better place by living your life with dignity and gracefulness, for you are Our Own Children. Hold back nothing from life, for the parts of you that can die surely will, and the parts that can't, won't. So don't worry, be happy. (We stole that last line from Bobby McFerrin.)
Simple stuff. Why do you keep making it so complicated? It's like you're always looking for an excuse to be upset. And We're very tired of being your main excuse. Do you think We care whether you call Us.... Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Diana, Wakantonka, Brahma, Cerridwen, Father, Mother, God, Goddess or even the Void of Nirvana? Do you think We care which of Our special children you feel closest to, Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Gerald, Mohammed or any of the others? You can call Us and Our Special Ones any name you choose, if only you would go about Our business of loving one another as We love you. How can you keep neglecting something so simple?
We're not telling you to abandon your religions. Enjoy your religions, honor them, learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents.
But do you walk around telling everyone that your parents are better than theirs? Your religion, like your parents, may always have the most special place in your hearts, We don't mind that at all. And We don't want you to combine all the Great Traditions in One Big Mess. Each religion is unique for a reason. Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves.
Know that Our Special Children, the ones that your religions revolve around, all live in the same place, (Our heart), and they get along perfectly, We assure you.
The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none. Our blessed children of Earth, the world has grown too small for your pervasive religious bigotry and confusion. The whole planet is connected by air travel, satellite dishes, telephones, fax machines, rock concerts, diseases, and mutual needs and concerns.
Get with the program! If you really want to help, then commit yourselves to figuring out how to feed your hungry, clothe your naked, protect your abused, and shelter your poor. And just as importantly, make your own everyday life a shining example of kindness and good humor. We've given you all the resources you need, if only you abandon your fear of each other and begin living, loving and laughing together.
We're not really ticked off. We just wanted to grab your attention because We hate to see you suffer. But We have given you free will to choose your own paths, and We just want you to be happy.
In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust,
Us
~ unknown author~
From: God/dess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Our Children of Earth
Re: Idiotic Religious Rivalries
Dear Children (and believe us, that's all of you), We consider ourselves pretty patient folks. For instance, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right. And about evolution? Boy, nothing is slower than designing that whole Darwinian thing to take place, cell by cell, and gene by gene.
We've been patient through your fashions, civilizations, wars and schemes, and the countless ways you take Us for granted until you get yourselves into big trouble again and again.
We want to let you know about some of the things that are starting to tick Us off.
First of all, your religious rivalries are driving Us up a wall. Enough already! Let's get one thing straight: These are YOUR religions, not Ours.
We're the whole enchilada; We're beyond them all. Every one of your religions claims there is only one of Us (which by the way, is absolutely true). But in the very next breath, each religion claims it's Our favorite one.
And each claims it's scriptures were written personally by Us, and that all the other scriptures are man-made. Oy Vey. How do We even begin to put a stop to such complicated nonsense?
Okay, listen up now. We're your Father AND Mother, and We don't play favorites among Our children.
Also, We hate to break it to you, but We don't write. Our longhand is awful and We've always been more of "doers" anyway. So ALL of your books, including those Bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired, remarkable people, but they also made mistakes here and there. We made sure of that so that you would never trust a written word more than your own living heart.
You see, one human being to Us, even a bum on the street, is worth more than all the Holy Books in the world. That's just the kind of folks we are.
Our spirit is not a historical thing. It's alive right here, right now, as fresh as your next breath.
Holy books and religious rites are sacred and powerful, but not more so than the least of you. They were only meant to steer you in the right direction, not to keep you arguing with each other, and certainly not to keep you from trusting your own personal connection with Us.
Which brings Us to Our next point about your nonsense. You act like We need you and your religions to stick up for Us or "win souls" for Our sake.
Please, don't do Us any favors. We can stand quite well on our own, thank you. We don't need you to defend Us, and We don't need constant credit. We just want you to be good to each other.
And another thing, We don't get all worked up over money or politics, so stop dragging Our names into your dramas. For example, We swear to Us ::::smile::::, that We never threatened Oral Roberts. We never rode in any of Rajneesh's Rolls Royces. We never told Pat Robertson to run for president, and We've never, EVER had a conversation with Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, or Jimmy Swaggart! Of course, come Judgment Day, We certainly intend to....
The thing is, We want you to stop thinking of religion as some sort of loyalty pledge to Us.
The true purpose of your religions is so that YOU can become more aware of Us, not the other way around. Believe Us, We know you already. We know what's in each of your hearts, and We love you with no strings attached.
Lighten up and enjoy Us. That's what religion is best for. What you seem to forget is how mysterious We are.
You look at the petty differences in your Scriptures and say, "Well, if THIS is the truth, then THAT can't be!" But instead of trying to figure out Our Paradoxes and Unfathomable Nature, which by the way, you NEVER will, why not open your hearts to the simple common threads in all religions.
You know what We're talking about. Love and respect everyone. Be kind, even when life is scary or confusing. Take courage and be of good cheer, for We are always with you. Learn how to be quiet, so you can hear Our still, small voice. (We don't like to shout).
Leave the world a better place by living your life with dignity and gracefulness, for you are Our Own Children. Hold back nothing from life, for the parts of you that can die surely will, and the parts that can't, won't. So don't worry, be happy. (We stole that last line from Bobby McFerrin.)
Simple stuff. Why do you keep making it so complicated? It's like you're always looking for an excuse to be upset. And We're very tired of being your main excuse. Do you think We care whether you call Us.... Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Diana, Wakantonka, Brahma, Cerridwen, Father, Mother, God, Goddess or even the Void of Nirvana? Do you think We care which of Our special children you feel closest to, Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Gerald, Mohammed or any of the others? You can call Us and Our Special Ones any name you choose, if only you would go about Our business of loving one another as We love you. How can you keep neglecting something so simple?
We're not telling you to abandon your religions. Enjoy your religions, honor them, learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents.
But do you walk around telling everyone that your parents are better than theirs? Your religion, like your parents, may always have the most special place in your hearts, We don't mind that at all. And We don't want you to combine all the Great Traditions in One Big Mess. Each religion is unique for a reason. Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves.
Know that Our Special Children, the ones that your religions revolve around, all live in the same place, (Our heart), and they get along perfectly, We assure you.
The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none. Our blessed children of Earth, the world has grown too small for your pervasive religious bigotry and confusion. The whole planet is connected by air travel, satellite dishes, telephones, fax machines, rock concerts, diseases, and mutual needs and concerns.
Get with the program! If you really want to help, then commit yourselves to figuring out how to feed your hungry, clothe your naked, protect your abused, and shelter your poor. And just as importantly, make your own everyday life a shining example of kindness and good humor. We've given you all the resources you need, if only you abandon your fear of each other and begin living, loving and laughing together.
We're not really ticked off. We just wanted to grab your attention because We hate to see you suffer. But We have given you free will to choose your own paths, and We just want you to be happy.
In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust,
Us
~ unknown author~
Theocracy Watch
Those of you who, like me, are horrified by the intolerant and undemocratic agenda of the theocratic right, who aim to subjugate everyone to their dominionist totalitarianism, should be reading Theocracy Watch regularly.
It's all there.
It's all there.
Book Meme
I got tagged by PSoTD for that pesky book meme thing that's doing the rounds and I've been dodging the issue for days now, so here goes.
Q1 -- You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to save?
One book, just one - oh hells...I guess it has to be the Norton Anthology of English Literature then (heh, that's cheating).
Q2 -- Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character? Nope.
Q3 -- The last book you bought is?
I rarely buy books, I prefer to pay for a new wing of the local library by running up fines on overdue books. I am just going to have to ship the damn things when we move back to Scotland after all. So...the last book I bought was The Truth by Terry Pratchett. I love Pratchett - he has so many good thoughts and puts them in such witty and amusing comic-fantasy settings. If Pratchett had started writing first, no-one would have heard of Douglas Adams.
Q4 -- What books are you currently reading?
Soul Music by Terry Pratchett - for about the zillionth time - I mean how can I say too much about a book where "rock music" invades a sword and sorcery setting? Just the puns - a singer who's name translates as Bud of the Holly and who keeps being asked if he is elvish, a dwarven horn player called Glod ("The Watch can't stop us, we're on a mission from Glod"), the wizard with "Born to Rune" on his robe...marvellous!
Inside the DaVinci Code - a collection of essays exploring the alternative views of Christian (and pagan) history from the Dan Brown book.
Q5 -- Five books you would take to a desert[ed] island?
Illuminatus by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea - to keep the braincells ticking.
Stranger In a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein - to keep the spirit ticking.
Carpe Jugulum by Terry Pratchett - simply his best, hilarious and thought-provoking at the same time.
The Celtic Reader by John and Caitlin Matthews - because I would have plenty time for research and thinking.
Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy - for relaxing on the beach.
I'm not going to pick five others to tag like I am supposed to. I never pass on chain mail either. If you want to do the meme, consider yourself tagged.
Q1 -- You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to save?
One book, just one - oh hells...I guess it has to be the Norton Anthology of English Literature then (heh, that's cheating).
Q2 -- Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character? Nope.
Q3 -- The last book you bought is?
I rarely buy books, I prefer to pay for a new wing of the local library by running up fines on overdue books. I am just going to have to ship the damn things when we move back to Scotland after all. So...the last book I bought was The Truth by Terry Pratchett. I love Pratchett - he has so many good thoughts and puts them in such witty and amusing comic-fantasy settings. If Pratchett had started writing first, no-one would have heard of Douglas Adams.
Q4 -- What books are you currently reading?
Soul Music by Terry Pratchett - for about the zillionth time - I mean how can I say too much about a book where "rock music" invades a sword and sorcery setting? Just the puns - a singer who's name translates as Bud of the Holly and who keeps being asked if he is elvish, a dwarven horn player called Glod ("The Watch can't stop us, we're on a mission from Glod"), the wizard with "Born to Rune" on his robe...marvellous!
Inside the DaVinci Code - a collection of essays exploring the alternative views of Christian (and pagan) history from the Dan Brown book.
Q5 -- Five books you would take to a desert[ed] island?
Illuminatus by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea - to keep the braincells ticking.
Stranger In a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein - to keep the spirit ticking.
Carpe Jugulum by Terry Pratchett - simply his best, hilarious and thought-provoking at the same time.
The Celtic Reader by John and Caitlin Matthews - because I would have plenty time for research and thinking.
Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy - for relaxing on the beach.
I'm not going to pick five others to tag like I am supposed to. I never pass on chain mail either. If you want to do the meme, consider yourself tagged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)